On “White Fragility”

Matt Taibbi

Jun 29

1,024

1,417

A few thoughts on America’s smash-hit #1 guide to egghead racialism

Read →

Top first

- Top first

- New first

jvmackJun 29

I subscribed to this site b/c I admire *Hate, Inc.*: that news media leverage hate to score readers is exactly right. But this is such a dismissive slam of DiAngelo. It doesn't address her argument; it's not clear whether or not Taibbi has actually read the DiAngelo's book. This is just "Let's get nasty about something naughty to get nasty about!" Using random quotes from DiAngelo for target practice. What a bumper crop of Hate. Why so defensive, Matt? Do you think racism is over now? If not, what are your ideas for how to stop the people in power from continuing to edge out whomever they can, i.e. those with the least power, a group that consistently includes blacks? If you've never seen a white person freak out when confronted with whatever demeaning/racist thing he or she said or did, then I think you're not paying attention. This is what DiAngelo's book describes: how people in power can stop defensively clinging to their power. How to recognize the knee-jerk discomfort/embarrassment/shame of being called out for acting superior-- and then let it go, and so maybe we might learn something. You've got the knee-jerk discomfort/embarrassment/shame part down pretty good, Matt, I think.

15Reply

Matt TaibbiJun 30

Of course I don't think racism is "over." That's absurd. I wrote two books on structural racism (mainly in the criminal justice system), an experience that was disillusioning even for someone who expected to find a system weighted against minorities. The issue is DiAngelo's prescription for dealing with racism is to massively increase the focus on race, at both a societal and individual level. Her simplistic binary view of the world - one is either on board with her conception of "antiracism" or a white supremacist - is a recipe for disaster, just like any doctrine that separates human beings into rigid categories of good people and bad people, citizens and uncitizens. This is the logic of the witch hunt and it's the reason a generation of young activists is on the hunt for lives to destroy, because in this theology the bad people are unredeemable agents of systemic evil and therefore not deserving of rights. This ideology does not believe in the common human experience, generosity, love, or spirituality. It assumes that people ultimately are ruled by bottom-line racial motivations in the same way Leninists assumed people were their class affiliations. It's an extremely dangerous idea, and needs to be identified as such, hence the article.

55Reply

BBJun 30

Matt, I appreciate your ability to do a vicious takedown, but you still aren't answering the question: What alternative(s) are you proposing? The racial wealth gap is as bad as it was 50 years ago, and Black incarceration rates are still horribly out of proportion. You researched and wrote about these things, but they aren't improving. I would argue with DiAngelo that white folks unwillingness to 1) acknowledge structural racism and/or 2) to be willing to investigate our cluelessness on racism (that helps perpetuate these racist structures) is a major impediment to progress. This comments section is rife with white denialism about racism, excuses about why white folks don't need to do anything, and many of the same scripts that DiAngelo talks about. This is Exhibit A in how hard it is for white folks to have meaningful conversations about racism. And so what is your better "science" based solution that doesn't create any division? -- please enlighten us on the specifics. Also, please invite DiAngelo onto Useful Idiots to respond to your attacks in person.

6Reply

QuietlikeJul 1

I'd suggest you look at statistics on white males born and raised in single mother homes without present fathers. I don't feel like digging around for somebody who may not want to click the link due to cognitive dissonance. If you truly seek truth, you can look it up.

White males in single mother homes are dramatically more likely to drop out of high school and become incarcerated. White women who have kids without a father present are dramatically more likely to drop out and remain poor.

Ask yourself what has happened to black families in the last 50 years? Since the 60s, the rate of out of wedlock births in the black community has sky rocketed. A majority of black children now live in homes without a father. The effects are no different than for white men.

Ending the drug war would help reduce incarceration and ideally reduce the fatherless rate in black communities, but it would only be a minority. Most of the absent black dads are not incarcerated. They just bailed. Please tell me what new form of racism has been created in the past 50 years to cause black men to abandon their families at higher rates than equally impoverished whites and latinos? Also, tell me what the government or I can do to get these assholes to not bail on their kids?

I'm sick and tired of being blamed for assholes impregnating women and bailing on them, and being expected to fix the result. Nobody is going to take care of my kids if I bail, so why should anyone else be expected to get that treatment?

FYA: The best father I know is a black man. He is a single father, is incredibly successful in his career, and coaches 3 different leagues throughout the year for boys. He complains often about this issue being ignored.

Black Dads Matter.

9Reply

Caek IsloveJul 1

Welfare plus abortion on demand has completely destroyed the black community.

No need to hold the baby-daddy accountable when the government is willing to step in and hand out cash payments.

1Reply

Rob Bird25 min

Hell yeah! Finally someone talking some sense. All those babies that were never born are draining the system! And for the ones that are born, let's just hang their poor single moms out to dry to teach these asshole dads a lesson!

Reply

Caek IsloveJul 1

Typical troll response. "OH SO YOU DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION TO THIS DROUGHT, HMMMM? THEN WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME I'M DUMB FOR THROWING VIRGINS INTO VOLCANOS TO MAKE IT RAIN!?!"

22Reply

Matt R.2 hr

Accurate summary of every critique so far.

2Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

"and Black incarceration rates"

"that white folks unwillingness"

"rife with white denialism"

"why white folks don't need to do anything"

"for white folks to have meaningful conversations"

"helps perpetuate these racist structures"

That's what capitalizing black does.

4Reply

jhnwlkJul 2

So, that’s your way of blowing The whole problem off. Great!

Reply

ROD SANDERS2 hr

The problem of writers treating people unequally based on their race? Easy fix. They just need to leave their racist views out of their written work. Like, don't capitalize color when referring to people's race. Right now, we have at least two major news distributors, AP & the NYT, intentionally emphasizing skin color as a basis for describing people differently based on race. This is racist ideology in action - real negative change.

As I have pointed out, AP instituted this policy change a couple weeks ago and the NYT has followed suit this week. They are deliberately stirring up racial discrimination with these policy changes. Their rationales for taking these actions are total nonsense - pure propaganda like we have come to expect from our IC-fed mainstream media.

And it appears that Mr Taibbi may have jumped on this runaway leftist racist train as well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what he does about "the problem."

1Reply

Dazed and ConfusedJun 30

Matt is not obligated to propose an alternative in a critique of the book and its message perhaps other than "whatever the author is proposing do the opposite." It is possible to point out a bad idea without necessarily having a ready made alternative. The criticism stands on its own.

26Reply

Dusan Vilicic HeldJun 30

Yeah, basically Matt is saying "we need to do something, but not this as it would be a remedy worse than the ailment". Is that so hard to understand? I duess ideological brainwashing went too far, and any old thing triggers the sectarian responses.

12Reply

NotsofastJul 1

The alternative is to address the underlying cause of all oppression: unregulated capitalism. The alternative is to participate in a cross racial working people’s movement which unites instead of divides. Until we address these issues we’ll remain in the gilded age of woke capitalism, diverse imperialism and inclusive environmental destruction.

5Reply

Dan3 hr

You're onto something, but the problem you're looking to is how 99.9% of the worlds population not being active participants in the market system(s) means the wealthy that do at a high and frequent level are largely uncontested. The general population is supposed to be the 'invisible hand' of the market that brings it to bear, but until more people are active in that process rent seekers will never be dealt with, nor their negative influence and impact resolved.

Reply

Dazed and ConfusedJul 1

Unregulated capitalism? Is that some sort of joke? If you honestly believe the system we have is unregulated capitalism then it's not even possible to have a discussion. You simply have no concept of reality.

5Reply

KevinJul 1

"The alternative is to address the underlying cause of all oppression: unregulated capitalism."

Thus proving you're an ignorant fool who really doesn't understand the problems face in America and the world, not to mention someone who has no concept of what free markets are in relationship to 'capitalism.'

2Reply

PPES SCANJul 2

Why does he have to provide an alternative to an asinine assertion?

5Reply

Tom WorsterJul 1

Do you think that anyone who wants to express their doubts about the White Fragility thesis must come ready with their own proposal for how to solve racism?

7Reply

ScottJul 1

Why can't people just be people and treat others as they would like to be treated???

Oh, I see: it doesn't help the DNC in an election year.

6Reply

MikeJun 30

Just send all your money to George Soros. He will pass it along to BLM, and you can stop weeping.

4Reply

jhnwlkJul 2

Ahh.... I knew it wouldn’t be long before the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” would get thrown in by some fascist.

Reply

SlitzyJul 2

No, Pumpkin... some of us see the $$$ is coming from scumbag Soros..

1Reply

SkutchJul 1

Cuz we all know Soros is the only billionaire funding movements in America and abroad, right sparky ?

1Reply

AllansonJun 30

Ultimately, the debate should be moving toward solutions, so I agree it's fair to ask if he has alternative solutions. But that doesn't mean there isn't also value is pointing out when other proposed solutions might be useless endeavors, or make things worse. It is clearly possible to be able to identify a wrong solution, and articulate why it's wrong, without necessarily knowing the right solution. Further, to the extent we are still searching for the right solution, part of the criticism of the book appears to be that a core tenet of its philosophy is to preclude further debate. That is a scary proposition in an area where we, as a society, have such a record of failure in our past attempts. The alarming trend in essays online, and potentially with the ideas in the book from what I gather, is to dismiss our quest from the last few decades to "lift all boats" as futile, and instead adopt a quest to "sink all boats." That philosophy must carry a heavier burden of persuasion because it is on its face less idealistic. A post-racial society is almost universally agreed to be a worthwhile goal, but pursuing a perpetually-racial society needs a loftier defense.

Reply

BBJul 1

You wouldn't know it from Matt's review or most of the discussion here, but DiAngelo agrees that a post-racial society is the ultimate goal. Based on years of having difficult conversations with white people, she notes that most white folks want to ignore existing racism and just jump to this post-racial reality without doing any hard work. This is the fantasy position that should require the heavier burden of persuasion / proof. It seems to be the one that Matt supports, but how would I know if he won't share his approach?

3Reply

jvmackJul 1

I appreciate your response and agree with you about identifying wrong solutions. Yet I don't believe that "a core tenet of [white fragility's] philosophy is to preclude further debate"; I feel that the preclusion rather lies with readers who remain unwilling or unable to understand the book.

1Reply

ConchJul 1

", but you still aren't answering the question: What alternative(s) are you proposing?"

Matt doesn't have to answer this question.

Typical troll response, actually.

Put your own thinking cap on and come up with some ideas.

3Reply

Dusan Vilicic HeldJun 30

You know the phrase "a remedy worse than the ailment?". Yeah, sometimes not doing anything can be better.

3Reply

Super GJul 2

One possible solution for discussion. Treat as a violation of civil rights the failure of local governments to equitably distribute to blacks key services provided to the community as a whole, such as: safe streets, satisfactory education outcomes and just treatment by the criminal justice system.

1Reply

Leif Hanson MagnusonJul 1

Race the construct, created by xenophobic European aristocrats to pose their superiority with pseudo scientific language and myth.

Starting a discussion from a lie gets you more lies.

Want job equity? Federal job guarantee.

Want health equity? single payer healthcare.

Want educational equity? Federal spending in the same measure as incarceration.

Know why we cant have these and so much more? The real power, the FIRE sector.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/splinternews.com/the-dangerous-myth-of-taxpayer-money-1819658902/amp

1Reply

Ryan BellJul 1

You might have gotten a better hearing here if you had just said this, which I think has merit. I don't at all agree that this is the point DiAngelo is making but if she were making this point it would be a problem.

1Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJul 1

I would sincerely be interested in a succinct paragraph or two, if you (or anyone who agrees with your statement) feel(s) so inclined, to explain the point the DiAngelo is making, in particular addressing how Matt got DiAngelo's point wrong. I want to understand this better.

Reply

BB43 min

next.20.yrs, DiAngelo is making a pretty simple point: After years of doing diversity and anti-racism training, she's noticed a particular pattern in the way many white people respond to being challenged about their racial world view, which she calls our "script." One of the script lines that appears right on the back cover is: "It's focusing on race that divides us." Which is exactly what Matt is saying. Contra Taibbi, she says white unconsciousness about race and racism must first be addressed. This is the simple argument that you can't solve a problem you don't even acknowledge exists. Now, Matt acknowledges not only racism, but structural racism, which is much more than can be said for many white folks on this comments section. But Matt does not appear to be willing to acknowledge the individual *psychological* effects each white person (and people passing as white) acquires simply be living in America's systemic racism. I can understand this -- I resist it myself -- it's the heavy lifting I mentioned earlier, and I struggle with it mightily. Matt, and lots of other liberal leaning people (not even mentioning conservative folks) poo-poo self examination. It's seen as weak and unnecessary and it makes them super uncomfortable. Maybe I'm wrong and Matt does lots of introspective work -- I invite him to correct me! But I suggest that Matt's piece is primarily an expression of his unconscious discomfort at being challenged -- he wrote 2 books so he's supposed to be an "expert" on racism! -- but how else do you explain the hyperbole of his statement that this is the "worst book ever written?" I've conceded Matt's point that DiAngelo lacks art and humor, but I think he lacks a willingness to take up the challenge of critical self examination, and lots of white folks here are cheering him because they don't want to do it either.

Reply

Caek IsloveJul 1

Her point is to sell books and secure consulting gigs. Everything else flows from there.

4Reply

MascotJul 1

The problem with the "White Fragility/Whiteness Studies" is that it elides the structural/institutional impacts of historical racism with the phenomenon of personal racist attitudes, and then goes on to focus almost exclusively on the second component, when the core problem resides in the legacy impacts from the first component. (I think this is an outgrowth of the rise of the notion that "the personal is political", which became viewed as a primary focus by the American Left in the 1980s, once the "right/center" Reagan/Tip O'Neill Establishment Democrat majority Congressional coalition reigned triumphant and banished the Left as a political force at the national level.)

Addressing structural impacts- with the notable exception of one institutional fixture- entails a shift away from government arbitrated by wealthy private interests toward implementing ideas associated with social democracy. That's an ambitious goal, and a very tough fight. And it isn't really the wheelhouse of most modern American liberals. As social critics like Barbara Ehrenreich have noted, the braintrust, the leadership, and the financial backers of the Democrats are now primarily drawn from the ranks of the professional-managerial class. They're much more comfortable with the "personal is political" approach. Sadly, so many of them have lost the common touch that they can't even process how terribly flawed and limited that approach is, as an officially ordained solution.

My own perspective continues to be that no major progress will be made in addressing race-related injustices until the War on Drugs is ended, repealed, and replaced by a system of comprehensive drugs law reform. The War on Drugs is the "one institutional fixture" that I alluded to above. As long as it continues, it comprises an intractable obstacle. For example, as long as the illicit criminal economy has a controlling interest in mostly black and Hispanic neighborhoods, "black-on-black crime" will rage on. That undeniable phenomenon is a chief talking point of the right wing. It's an effective forking tactic because it's an indisputable reality. (Save your whataboutism. I'm starting with the hard questions. I can at least save issues like the rampant nationwide corruption of the police by the illicit drugs trade for the next comment, can't I?) Only the dismantling of massive criminal economy by pointedly effective drugs law reform will solve that problem. No amount of gun control will do it. Disarming the police won't do it. Abolishing the police department won't do it. Seminars on White Fragility won't do it.

Only after American political leaders confront the issue of replacing the War on Drugs with a rational policy that doesn't perpetuate the economic- and cultural- power of the criminal underworld in this country, from the bottom to the top, will we be in any position to take the next steps to ameliorate the problem.

Any questions, or is this post going to get the same blank silence those observations have overwhelmingly received for the last 20 years (especially from chickenshit liberals)?

9Reply

ConchJul 1

"As social critics like Barbara Ehrenreich have noted, the braintrust, the leadership, and the financial backers of the Democrats are now primarily drawn from the ranks of the professional-managerial class. "

Thomas Frank's "Listen LIberal!" is another brilliant dissection of the growth of the professional class, its takeover of the Democratic Party, and also the expansion of professionals' class interests (if not their class consciousness). Well worth a read, and very well written and documented.

6Reply

Jonathan Ben-AsherJul 1

Thank you. Listen Liberal has become my Bible. I recommend it to everyone. Also great is his next book, Rendezvous with Oblivion.

2Reply

MascotJul 1

Yes, I've been reading Thomas Frank since he wrote What's The Matter With Kansas? about 15 years ago.

The two books from the 1990s that I recommend are Shadows Of Hope by Sam Smith, and Partners In Power, by Roger Morris.

I hate saying "ain't nothing changed". It sounds so hopeless. But 25 years on, the Democratic Party brain trust (such as it is) and the people I refer to as the Orthodox Liberal Establishment have yet to demonstrate that they've learned anything from any of those critiques. For all the unsparing and frequently scathing character of observations in those books, they were ultimately intended as constructive criticism, not Enemy Action.

1Reply

ConchJul 1

Reading "Listen, LIberal" led me to formulate my view that ALL of the 99%, all colors, need to develop a set of political demands to roll back legislation **passed by Democratic administrations** within the past 30 years. We cannot change the past of slavery. It is hard to gather statistics on the consequences of slavery. But we damned well can change recent legislation passed by our supposedly left party that has destroyed all of our 99% communities. Including bank bailouts, under Obama. Just add to taht single-payer healthcare, and we would be in a whole lot better shape. I cannot have any respect for hooligans who pull down statues and cannot put a sentence together to make single political demand. The 99% should be demanding rollbacks of specific legislation passed since 1993 by Clinton--Bush 2--Obama. What's going on now is a big circle jerk.

2Reply

mbeaken7 hr

That is a great point, although I think also unfair if intended as a critique of DiAngelo and other “whiteness” scholars. That would be like critiquing people for studying car exhaust pollution because factories contribute to air pollution more significantly. The study of one thing does not mean it presupposes it is the most important. (Side note: Your point also made me think about people who focus on turning off the water when they brush their teeth vs corporations that have been given free reign to destroy the planet...I agree we lose when we focus too much on the individual when combating systems of power). I would bet that 99% of people who study white identity also agree we need criminal justice reform (including ending the War on Drugs). However, look at what is currently happening with schools dissolving their partnerships with police, defunding police departments, etc. and books like White Fragility and How to Be An Antiracist sustaining #1 spots on bestseller lists for months. I think there is a relationship there that may not be directly causal, but surely there is some connection. Seeking to understand how racism and oppression functions in this country must include a discussion of how the idea whiteness operates at a social and political level. Hoping the war on drugs is next!!

Reply

Super GJul 1

It’s always been all about the benjamins. Whether it’s purveyors of illegal drugs buying elected officials or the purveyors of legal drugs buying elected officials. With the expansion of campaign spending allowed by Citizens United, they don’t even have to be covert about it. I don’t see any meaningful legislative change taking place without campaign finance reform. That is unless voters, who give congress a 15% approval rate but an 85% re-election rate, wake up and vote them out.

2Reply

Eric73Jul 1

No questions, just applause. 🙂

Reply

MascotJul 1

"ameliorate the problem" > make that "problems." A whole host of them. Some of them related to the American legacy of racial injustice, some wider in scope. But until the power of the political economy of illicit drugs is undone, everything else is tail-chasing. Costly, ineffective, exhausting.

Maybe you'll face the answer once you get tired of that game.

Reply

jvmackJul 1

You say there's something wrong with "massively increas[ing] the focus on race, at both a societal and individual level," but you don't explain why there's something wrong with that. You've written two books on structural racism: so, you achieved just the right focus on race? A massive focus on race is not the same thing as a "simplistic binary view of the world." That you equate DiAngelo's book with separating "human beings into rigid categories of good people and bad people" indicates that you do not understand her book. DiAngelo's book is not about intentionally bad or hateful human choices: it's about counter-productive yet habitual ways of seeing and interpreting the world. Perhaps if, instead of using the terms white supremacy and white privilege, we might start speaking of white-valence. White Fragility is not about people intentionally trying to hold onto white supremacy or privilege: it's about our resistance to letting go of habitual ways of viewing the world. We're not resisting because we're bad; it's because we don't want to be bad, and because it's natural to resist change. And even if we're not intentionally choosing to be bad, people do have a right to be very angry.

5Reply

BBJul 2

Bravo. This is the critical distinction that Matt and many of the white people in this comments section fail to make: Being white in America doesn't make us bad, but by marinating in the structural racism of America, we've absorbed -- mostly unconsciously -- "bad" (racially unhelpful) beliefs / world views that cause us to be unconsciously complicit with these racist systems. Becoming aware of our racial bias is the heavy lifting, which most of us want to avoid (including myself), and while DiAngelo's approach may not be the most artful or appealing to some, at least she recognizes the need for the hard work. Yes, there is some research that training aimed at addressing unconscious bias is not effective, but these involved short term efforts (e.g., exposure to 1 workshop) -- of course a workshop or two will not be effective against bias that has built up over decades. So, what each white person can ask themselves is, "Do I care enough about my POC friends and fellow citizens to do the hard work, or am I just going to find excuses to stay in my white comfort bubble?"

3Reply

MascotJul 1

It must be yugely entertaining for you, Matt, what with all the right-wing ideological simpletons trying to get their foot inside your door with their fawning...

2Reply

PPES SCANJul 2

Wow, that's nice. Maybe you should give Matt's Hate, Inc. a whirl.

Reply

DN23 hr

Wait a sec.. where's my digital 'high lighter' tool. Much appreciate you 'fighting the good fight' , but, doesn't reiterating tire you ? You got no 'splainin' to do.

Reply

MikeJun 30

I know that EVERYBODY on earth feels affinity for their own race, tribe, ethnic group, language and religion. And almost all people regard "the other" with varying degrees of suspicion, alienation, fear. This is universal and cannot be ended, period. That behavior and inclination is genetically transmitted to each new generation. Nature, in the form of evolution, designed humans in this way to prevent what is called "genetic drift", which would quickly result in the weakening of the core genome of modern humans. That core genome has made us strong, resistant to many ailments, extremely intelligent, and able to create the modern world we all live in. Evolution is still working on us, we are a work in progress, but we are getting stronger with each generation. No need to tamper with success.

Reply

Eric73Jul 1

Are you being serious? A basic corollary of evolution theory is that genetic diversification strengthens, not weakens the genome. Weaknesses in the genome are weeded out by natural selection, not fear of "the other", which is only related to natural selection in that, on balance, fearing the unknown tends to keep you from getting killed. That doesn't mean it doesn't have downsides, one of which is that it can lead a population to become rather vulnerable (genetically or otherwise) to a sudden novel threat.

1Reply

ScottJul 1

fight fight fight fight

Reply

angelOJul 1

"The issue is DiAngelo's prescription for dealing with racism is to massively increase the focus on race, at both a societal and individual level."

- Matt Taibbi expressing a sentiment that's uncannily similar to one expressed by that great champion of human rights, Chief Justice John Roberts, here:

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Reply

ConchJul 1

Right on!

But please do try to fix the twitchiness.

Reply

DanielJun 29

That may be what DiAngelo claims she is describing, but Matt's point is that her book actually promotes logical fallacies and crazy Kafka traps which will do nothing but antagonize ordinary people and probably make actual racism worse.

61Reply

KurtJun 29

In summary: if you agree with her, then she’s right. If you disagree with her, then she’s right.

There’s nothing wrong with teaching people to recognize defensiveness and overcome it, not with teaching people to be aware of what their words/actions can cause others to feel.

If that’s all DeAngelo taught, I’m 100% certain that Matt would have no problem with it.

But that’s not all she’s saying. Not by a long shot. The fact that it’s what you’re implying makes me wonder if you’re arguing in good faith (or, at the very least, if YOU aren’t the defensive knee-jerker in this equation).

41Reply

BBJun 30

Kurt, how often do you talk with white folks about racism? I suggest that if you did, you recognize what jvmack and DiAngelo are saying: White people seem to slip into an unconscious script about why they're not racist / why racism doesn't exist, etc. I see this in most of my conversations with white people about race, too. Don't take our word for it -- try it out. And also ask some Black folks if they're willing to share their experiences of racism with you.

2Reply

Michael GoldenbergJun 30

Gee, I can't speak for Kurt, whom I do not know, but if you're active on social media, it's rather impossible to avoid speaking with all sorts of people about racism these days.

Last I checked, I've been white for pretty much all of my seventy years (I probably wasn't enculturated into whiteness in early infancy, but I'll let that go). And I try to avoid making gross generalizations about any group of people based on characteristics like melanin. But I'm enough of a product of American white culture (or at least the greater NYC liberal Jewish segment c. 1950-present) to know that no one can be raised here without being tainted by the history of the continent and the current nation that occupies the area between Canada and Mexico. To say "I'm not racist" is a bit silly, but it's also ridiculous to expect the average American to say, "Well, of course, I'm racist. Now, what?" which is what I generally say if it comes up.

Thing is, I have no difficulty owning the life I lived. I didn't go around harassing black people (or members of any group). I didn't keep black people out of clubs or activities. I went to summer camp as a teenager with black kids from Alabama (one of whom, Reggie Davis, is Angela Davis' younger brother; also the younger brother of Ben Davis, later an all-pro defensive back for the Cleveland Browns, who was a domestic exchange student at my high school a couple of years ahead of me). My parents were politically active and about as anti-racist and anti-war as they could be in suburban NJ in the '50s and '60s. Still, I knew very few black people until high school and relatively few at that time. Only in college did I have a chance to meet and go to school with more than a couple of black people. I worked with black people in a printing company during my last two summers in high school, but we didn't hang out together after work (nor did I hang out with anyone else after work from that job, for a host of reasons).

Fifty odd years later, I'm sure that when I hear people say that they're not racist and/or that racism doesn't exist, such people are unlikely to understand me when I say unhesitatingly that I assume that everyone in this country is infected by racism; that all white people are racist (though not necessarily to the same degree or in the same ways) and that no one can live here for very long without catching the effects of living in a racist society. I won't go so far as to say "All black people, all brown people, all PEOPLE in this country are in fact racist" because that opens up a dozen cans of worms that distract from productive conversation. But what it means is that it's impossible to be here and escape from the impact that racism brings to bear on American life - social, economic, psychological, cultural, etc.

I've spent a huge percentage of my life in Michigan now, working in math education and teacher-education in Detroit, Flint, Muskegon, Grand Rapids, Pontiac, Monroe, and other urban districts, mostly with black and Latinx students, parents, and other educators. I have seen all sorts of data that make clear the existence of racism, its impact, and the severe conditions in which the majority of people of color live in these cities. I'm more than aware of the pervasiveness of mass incarceration and the profits being made from sending millions of young, mostly black, mostly male people to prison directly from schools that function in many ways as preparation for life in jail.

And absolutely none of that makes me disagree with the vast majority of what Matt has written or what people like Kurt have said about it. DiAngelo's book strikes me as vapid nonsense written by someone who's figured out how to make a nice $$ by exploiting a moment in a long tragic history. And for the most part, I think she's got virtually nothing insightful to offer that hasn't been said more profoundly and clearly and constructively by many others (many of them black or Latinx or Asian or Native American, etc.) for the better part of 170 years or so. She's a flavor of the month, a hustler, and her work isn't going to help anyone except herself and her mini-cult.

Critical race theory isn't some monolith in which everyone doing work is a wonderful, selfless human being whose every word must be attended to carefully and worshipfully. Like any other field, it's got hucksters and charlatans and fools. And we do NOT benefit from assuming that everyone in it is a profound thinker because clearly she isn't. Kow towing to her and her work is a very bad idea. I can just as easily claim to be a critical race theorist and come out with a bunch of jargon and bilge that will help me get a piece of the nice dollar (to steal from Bill Hicks) that DiAnglelo has glommed onto, but my problem is that I actually care about things like truth, equity, human decency, and other inconvenient ethical issues that would make me have to shoot myself were I to go the route she's chosen. I feel about her much as I feel about Jordan Peterson and other academics and pseudo-intellectuals who have imbecilic viewpoints grounded in little but personal psychology and wishful thinking that they gin up with jargon and fluff to better foist it all upon some gullible segments of the public (including corporate culture).

There are far better people out there fighting racism and educating people about it. Why anyone would be suckered by someone like DiAngelo eludes me.

13Reply

Will HallJun 30

Hey everyone maybe it's possible to appreciate Matt's critique and at the same time take White Fragility as useful in other ways, and then move on with life. Rather than once again forcing ourselves into one camp or another.

7Reply

Will HallJul 1

I mean, the book seems to be saying "Hey white people, listen more, be less defensive, don't think you have all the answers, and be more forgiving around racial trauma." Everything else aside, seems like some good advice.

Reply

Caek IsloveJul 1

What if someone's response is "But I don't identify as white because race is just a social construct"?

DiAngelo's response would obviously be "But you *ARE* white. I can tell!", which seems pretty um, what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah. Racist.

3Reply

KurtJul 2

Everything else aside, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" seems like good advice. So, if you believe that it's good advice, then you must be a Christian, right?

Obviously not. Because there *is* everything else. And it *can't* be set aside.

Reply

KurtJun 30

Please don’t presume to know the extent to which I have or haven’t spoken with people (of whatever color) about racism.

My original comment stands: cultural awareness/cultural humility is founded upon individuals (*all* individuals in a given interaction) being aware of their own biases and being willing to listen with an open heart.

Either you agree with me on this or you don’t. Please don’t try moving the goalposts.

1Reply

MascotJun 29

and there's your logical double-bind.

It's worth noting that African-Americans in the contemporary era have been known to be subjected to similar traps, upon offering public vocal dissent from a particular ideological party line that's "commonly supposed" to be the approved "pro-black" position.

It's possible to think someone is wrong on an issue of that sort and then go on to disagree with the content of their views, without sarcastically questioning or disdaining their "blackness" (if they're African-American) or pre-emptively judging them as "racist" (if their ancestry is European.) It's the difference between opening up a topic for debate and seeking to shut it down.

10Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

"It's worth noting that African-Americans in the contemporary era have been known to be subjected to similar traps..."

The term "African-American" is a racist term. Black and African-American are not synonyms. African-American is a 21st century term typically and incorrectly used to distinguish blacks from full-fledged Americans, who are of course, white. It's a term that was coined for the political purpose of Identity Politics, a strategy devised by the left. The true connotation of African-American is "victimized" American.

1Reply

MascotJun 30

All of the terms of "race-based nomenclature" are noisy. I think you're out of line in calling out "African-American" as "racist", and I suspect that you're only doing so because it seems like an easy, cheap shot to take in a game of "turnabout." As if we didn't have enough of those already, being hurled in all directions. I'm in this discussion to untangle the noise, not to throw more chaos firecrackers on the bonfire.

Also, I'm not here in service of an ideological zero-sum game. That's tired, to me.

As I said, I think "African-American" is a noisy term. But it's a useful one, in some ways. It's intended to refer to the subset of African diaspora people- a population that didn't order anything about their relocation to the New World, or what happened when they got there- that ended up in what became the US, and lived under the unique set of rules devised by "white" (mostly English) Americans. Which makes them different from Haitians, or Jamaicans, or Bahamaians, or Brazilians, or Africans from Africa. Because- this won't go down easy, but it's true- in a lot of ways, of all the slave-owning national regimes of the Western hemisphere, the US was the national regime that made it the toughest on African diaspora people. The US damaged its black African diaspora population to an extent that didn't occur in the Caribbean island nations, which had black majority populations. All of the Carribbean nations were emancipated decades before enslaved people in the US. The attitudes of the islanders toward their own ethnic identity are a lot more secure and confident- which helps to account for how black Caribbean immigrants currently tend to achieve upward mobility in the US faster than black Americans. Jamaicans never had to contend with the reality that they were vastly outnumbered by a population of a different ethnicity, with the levers of power controlled by men whose attitudes overwhelmingly fell in the range between unwelcoming and openly hostile.

3Reply

Yaw18 hr

African American here. You have this wrong. A large swath of African descended Americans adopted this term to give cultural rooting that others like Italian Americans, German Americans and others enjoy who did not forcibly have their heritage and cultural roots interrupted via enslavement. In other words they know who they are and from whence they came. Your equation of it to so called victimized American is intellectually childish at worst and reductionist at best.

Reply

ConchJun 30

Oh, come on.

African American is analogous with Italian /Irish/Arab/ and many other such terms. It became popular adn in many ways preferable to other options within my own lifetime and memory.

Viz., "Most of us became familiar with the ethnonym African American in the 1980s, when Jesse Jackson began popularizing it as an alternative to black. (An ethnonym is a name by which an ethnic or racial group is known.) But the term is much older than that: recently, I found an example dating back to the earliest days of the American republic."'

For more of this discussion see https://yalealumnimagazine.com/articles/4216-the-origin-of-african-american

3Reply

ScottJul 1

Wrong, dummy.

As the product of Italian and Acadian immigrants who was taught that we are all "Americans" and that to assimilate and to thrive meant becoming "American" was the only way to succeed and not starve to death I disagree with your bullshit.

Stop drawing lines based on race publicly, privately.

We are all just people. People who live under the rule of law and that rule is SUPPOSED to be equal.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The founding principals are still solid and have tremendous value for ALL of us.

Some would have us believe that racism is systemic, and that everyone is at each others' throats 24/7, but it's just not true.

Blowing up a small percentage of events and holding them up as examples is willfully deceiving the public at large in any case.

CNN/FOX/MSNBC all have a vested interest in fomenting civil unrest.

Remember that THEIR masters are the enemies of us all.

Reply

ConchJul 1

Scott, calm down.

I didn't draw these lines.

Take it up with Jesse Jackson.

1Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

Interesting. Good link. Thanks.

Reply

KurtJun 29

“not” should be “nor” in paragraph 2

4Reply

Wally LindJun 30

For me, I'm sure defending myself against the thought of being a racist (I'm 74 and no one cares anymore), when I write, at least to some extent.

Reply

minitigerJun 29

Having been a fan of Matt Taibbi for years, I find it highly unlikely that he’d critique DiAngelo’s book without having read it first. He’s one of the last few who values integrity above all else.

33Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

I read the book and thought Matt did a good job of pointing out how flawed it is. Matt isn't writing a dissertation and besides he promised that this article is part of a larger piece he will make available this week. Beyond that, I wonder if you even read Matt's article. Nowhere did he state "racism is over." DiAngelos' book and CRT in general is a perfect example of a Kafkatrap. I suspect you haven't spent much time reading or listening to critics of CRT and this book, in particular. That might be worth your time.

30Reply

CertexJun 29

The man quotes the book at length, and gives critical analyses of the main themes in it. How is it possible that he has not read it?

24Reply

Bentley StrangeJun 29

That’s mostly because DiAngelo HAS no valid arguments. She has a lot of false assumptions, begged questions, and a totally fascist philosophy. Only intellectually inadequate people could ever find her work convincing at even the most elementary level.

Racism will never be over as long as people like DiAngelo are around to deliberate poison the intellectual atmosphere, while parroting a mirror image of Nazism. A special place in hell is reserved, it is said, for people like her.

21Reply

J. C. SalomonJun 29

<i>White Fragility</i> doesn’t <em>have</em> an argument. The point Matt is making is that DiAngelo and her ilk have abandoned “argument” for bullying and kafkatrapping.

16Reply

CertexJun 29

'kafkatrapping' is a great word. Chuckling.

3Reply

inmate-6574311Jun 29

It's a coinage of Eric Raymond's. "To deny the accusation proves your guilt."

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

7Reply

ScottJul 1

It's comical until they send you to the fucking Gulag.

2Reply

Valerie TaricoJun 30

As best I can tell from my vantage as a psychologist, white fragility as defined by DiAngelo fails as a empirical psychological construct. It is defined so broadly and variously as to be untestable.

8Reply

ScottJul 1

What? Racist rhetoric fails under closer scrutiny??? Shocker!

1Reply

MascotJun 29

I think it's laudable for someone to obtain an awareness of racial injustice, and to work to overcome it. But no one should fool themselves that they're going to get anywhere with that project by jettisoning informal logic standards for double-minded thinking, or by failing to confront the absurdly high noise quotient found in the tangled semantics of "race" and "color."

Otherwise, what you get is

1) the demand for common assent to the imposition of logical double-binds as a foundational premise for "anti-racism"- a premise that anyone is on firm ground in rejecting as an insult to the standards of informal logic, which are not to be twisted.

Note that even "white supremacist" racists are on firm ground in rejecting a logical double-bind when it's imposed on them. Incidentally, the use of that lazy, sloppy tactic allows them to shift the subject of discussion to the ludicrous illogic of such demands. Easy turf to argue on.

The actual focus of a coherent, effective antiracist effort directed at "white supremacists" should be to focus on the logical flaws of THEIR double-mindedness. By contrast, invoking a logical double-bind as a requirement for people of European ancestry to qualify as "antiracist" only compounds the murk and confusion.

2) a failure to draw the obvious lesson from the historical reality that the insistence on color-coded terminology and ancestral heritage as reified categories was originally the idea of the slaveowner caste. Why imagine that reiterating and restoring that emphasis will somehow have a positive effect? You actually think that there's a way to rehabilitate that terminology? It was wrong in the first place. Those terms have a place in the discussion. But only conditionally, in a commonly understood context that references the historical past, and always with full awareness of the inherently high quotient of bogosity involved in pigeonholing any individual or group within the confines of a single category. Especially a general category with an elusive definition.

("Class", "caste", "ethnicity", "ancestry", "heritage", "legacy", "nationality"...all of those words have some precision to their definitions. Whereas defaulting to referencing racial categories and "color" in discussions of human society, culture, and history have a way of introducing more mush than clarity. Particularly the more distant the audience for the conversation.)

It should also be understood that opposition to white supremacy is only part of a wider task, which is struggling to overcome oppression, injustice, and cruelty, per se. In that regard, no one should be celebrating Twitter pack swarms, doxxing random strangers, hounding people out of their jobs, or any of the other aspects of cancel culture. What possesses anyone to imagine that these tactics support the pursuit of justice? They're mimicking the unjust behavior of the oppressors! Those tactics are anti-due process, anti-privacy rights, and anti-civil liberties. I don't buy the argument that the tactics are justified by the targets...it's identical to the argument of the Ku Klux Klan, c.1867.

10Reply

JoeJun 29

Very well said. I am still trying to sort out the logical soundness of being anti-racist. I think it depends on the intent. The historical construction of race classifications as a way to oppress is different than acknowledging the privilege that now comes with those classifications. So I think it’s more about evoking race in order to remove the negative impacts of those classifications. That takes a high level of awareness from everyone in understanding the nature of how/why we are invoking race.

3Reply

MascotJun 29

The language of "race" and color- the fouled-up semantics and connotations embedded in the terminology- lead to problems like confusing confronting the historical reality and redressing authentic grievances with attributions of "blood guilt", and "blood libel" (which are racist concepts.) The acknowledgement of the often horrible truth of racial injustice is about legacy impacts carried from the past, and the necessity to address those impacts so that they diminish and disappear. A task that's considerably tougher in some respects than it was in 1866, due to the negative legacy impacts of sharecropper indenture and the prison farm system, de jure segregation (Jim Crow), and weaponizing criminalized drug population against scapegoated populations, including African-Americans.

By contrast, imputations of blood guilt ultimately merely serve personal egomania. No matter who indulges in that move. One of the dubious rewards that result from someone adapting racism to suit their own preferences when they find it advantageous. Shifting the goal to who is to be the master, rather than dismantling the concept.

3Reply

KurtJun 29

Upvoted to infinity

1Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

It’s easy to agree that illiberal activity is a net negative. I’m less interested in the assertion that the broader enterprise of examining and mitigating white supremacy is somehow responsible for every bad actor inside the tent, anymore than every small gov’t advocate owns the worst excesses of the Tea Party movement or Christianity owns the sermons coming out of Westboro Baptist Church. You’re making actual points about efficacy, which is levels beyond what this piece is trying to accomplish.

Reply

tom mitchellJun 29

No one can fully predict the outcome of an action. Forget anticipated consequences, and do the right thing.

Reply

TylerJun 29

Specifically, what is DiAngelo's argument in White Fragility that Matt Taibbi didn't address?

5Reply

ScottJul 1

All of her arguments are predicated on racial lies and stereotypes.

It's Mein Kampf, Yale edition.

3Reply

ConchJun 30

Anyone who upper-cases "Hate" sets my antennae twitching. Enuff with the rhetorical uppercasing. It is puerile.

Speaking of editorial standards, MW has a new definition of "racism" :

"1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2

a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

b: a political or social system founded on racism

3: racial prejudice or discrimination"

It sure seems like DiAngelo's book is an example of the first definition.

2Reply

MikeJun 29

Have you ever read an Anthropology book? Ever heard the term "ethnocentric?". All humans everywhere have a natural affinity for their own race, their own tribe, people who "look like them". And we all harbor a certain level of suspicion, alienation, even fear, toward "the other". This emotional and behavioral condition is genetically inherited and cannot be "cured". Nor is there any reason to try and change people's behavior by coercion. The only result of that will inevitably be a violent reaction. It is obvious by your post that you will reject that idea, and you will go through live weeping for what can never be. You are a lost soul.

Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

Bret Weinstein (Evolutionary Biologist) argues that we humans cooperate either on genetic relatedness or on various kinds or reciprocity; the former having a much longer history than the latter. (The latter only emerging after the invention of farming.) When reciprocity cooperation fails, humans default to gene-based cooperation. CRT is a call to gene-based cooperation, which will result in very bad consequences. I have probably mangled this a bit but you can see his discussions about this on YT .

2Reply

Super GJul 1

Is DiAngelo defensively clinging to power when she continues as a professor at University of Washington where just 2% of the professors are black?

Reply

Stephen oJul 1

Matt cites passage after passage FROM THE FREAKING BOOK!!! How can anyone say it sounds like he hasn't read it???!? He takes issue with specific arguments in the book but that's all swept away with a charge if dismissiveness?!?! This level of blindness is beyond mockery.

Reply

RemJun 29

You sound like a sociopath.

1Reply

Jonathan W.Jun 29

We've seen so many Black people being brutalized recently and on the streets protesting for their rights, while people are sitting and arguing the merits of the latest "woke of the week" book. White Fragility is so milquetoast and merely scratches the surface of the structure of racism in our society. I wouldn't recommend it, but at least its a start. I guess the relationship between N* Jim and Huck Finn provides a more realistic way to bridge America's racial divides and "love each other".....You could at least suggested some Richard Wright or Toni Morrison. I'm unsubscribing from you after your last two posts.

I'm realizing that the grift never ends. On either side.

7Reply

Matt TaibbiJun 29

Richard Wright and Toni Morrison weren’t just banned. Huck Finn and Mockingbird were.

27Reply

tom mitchellJun 29

'The Sell-Out' by Paul Beatty really gives this point some lively zing.

3Reply

Michael GoldenbergJun 30

Great book by a brilliant writer. A fitting "successor" to the fantastic Ishmael Reed (who's still out there punching).

3Reply

jvmackJul 2

Jonathan W.'s comment doesn't say anything about banned books. Your takedowns might work better if you read more carefully.

Reply

SkutchJun 29

If you have to unsubscribe then you truly are fragile aren't you ? Don't forget to burn some of Matt's books to prove your point.

27Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 29

The police kill far more whites (see the cases of Justine Damond and Tony Timpa) than blacks. Of course, whites don't riot (these days). I tried Google with "justine damond" with "police killing" and got 2,420 hits. By contrast, "george floyd" with "police killing" got 2.3 million hits. "tony timpa" with "police killing" got 2,750 hits. Some lives are more important than others.

2Reply

Michael GoldenbergJun 30

Wait, if I see two cases, that will prove your claim? First, there are a lot more white people than black people in this country, so comparing the count of the murdered by itself is meaningless. And for every statistic you quote in which the murder of a black person gets tons of attention while the murder of a white person does not, you can't really be suggesting that there aren't countless other murders and deaths and disappearances of people of color that go by with barely a mention while the death or murder or disappearance of some white girl will grab headlines often for years? Well, actually, you probably could.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

Of course, there are more white people than black people in America. So of course, we should adjust police related death cases for population differences.

However, we also need to adjust for crime rates. The black crime rate is 7-9X the white crime rate. This is not just an artifact of arrests. Victimization surveys produce the same numbers. Given the vast disparity in crime rates (which is true even adjusting for income), the surprising thing is how few blacks the police kill (relative to whites). R. Fryer’s (black, Harvard, NBER) work is to be commended in this context. Let me quote

“Using data from Houston, Texas – where we have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified –we find, after controlling for suspect demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics.”

As for publicity, of course, most killings of black people get no (or very little) media coverage. Let me quote from Joe Hicks on this point.

“Last week — last week, three people were walking out a liquor store in San Bernardino — people are familiar with San Bernardino because that’s where the massacre took place. Two black men and a 9-year- old boy walking out of a liquor store mowed down by a black suspect. Where was Black Lives Matter? Did you guys mobilize in San Bernardino?”

Does BLM care about dead black children? Of course note.

The truth is actually worse. Quote from Matt Taibi.

“Probably the most disturbing story involved Intercept writer Lee Fang, one of a fast-shrinking number of young reporters actually skilled in investigative journalism. Fang’s work in the area of campaign finance especially has led to concrete impact, including a record fine to a conservative Super PAC: few young reporters have done more to combat corruption.

Yet Fang found himself denounced online as a racist, then hauled before H.R. His crime? During protests, he tweeted this interview with an African-American man named Maximum Fr, who described having two cousins murdered in the East Oakland neighborhood where he grew up. Saying his aunt is still not over those killings, Max asked:

I always question, why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it?... Like, if a white man takes my life tonight, it’s going to be national news, but if a Black man takes my life, it might not even be spoken of… It’s stuff just like that that I just want in the mix.”

Max. Fr is a BLM activist (one who apparently cares about black children).

4Reply

Michael GoldenbergJun 30

What's your theory, Peter? Black people are just natural-born criminals? Killers? Here's a clue: violent crime historically is much higher in impoverished neighborhoods. You think Hell's Kitchen got its name because Satan used to cook there? Yet it was predominantly poor and white. And violent. You seem like a smart guy. Why don't you use your intelligence to get off the bus of white people trying to ignore history and instead find ways to spin reality so that cops killing people of color is simply the inexplicable fault of bad genes, bad culture, bad hair, ad nauseam.

Yes, black people get killed by other black people, though as a rule it isn't some black doctor being murdered by a black accountant, is it? I know it's desperately important for you to find ways to minimize the significance of police violence against people of color. One way is what you're doing: to make it seem "not so bad" because, darn it, police are plenty happy to kill white people, too!"

I'm sure that makes the families of the dead black people feel much better. But some people might suggest that all you've done is proved what some of us on the radical end of the political spectrum could have told you a very long time ago: our police force is out of control. It kills unnecessarily (and that would be a factor I don't think I read about in the study you cite: what percentage of the people killed by cops could reasonably be construed to have been killed due to unnecessary or excessive force, and what are the percentages of black and brown vs. white people so executed by those folks whose jobs are supposed to be to "protect and serve"?

The problem has something to do, somewhere, with just who they protect and serve. It isn't generally people of color or poor people, and particularly not poor people of color. I bet you know that, too, on some level. But I have a funny feeling that you're never going to admit it publicly. Too much invested in spinning a fairy tale in which those bad people just bring it all upon themselves with zero historical or social or economic context whatsoever. Way back on the Serengeti Plain, Africans were already sitting around shiftlessly figuring out how to mug and murder each other, no doubt.

1Reply

RobertJun 30

And what is your theory of why Black people are poor? Could it be that just as the civil rights act was passed in 1964 the immigration laws were changed to give employers access to millions of lighter-skinned, "hardworking" immigrant workers so they would not have to hire Black people? The immigration act aided and abetted the employers' prejudices. On top of that, jobs were shipped abroad in the millions to the detriment of Black workers and many others. Where is the politician who promises to fix those problems for the Black community? Oh, yeah.

Reply

jvmack5 hr

And the FHA's discrimination against blacks beginning in the 1930s, redlining, the exclusion of blacks from FDR's New Deal programs, combined with legal decisions that disenfranchised blacks and enabled some whites to acquire real estate wealth and upward mobility

1Reply

jvmack5 hr

And the FHA's discrimination against blacks beginning in the 1930s, redlining, the exclusion of blacks from FDR's New Deal programs, combined with legal decisions that disenfranchised blacks and enabled some whites to acquire real estate wealth and upward mobility

Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

There's no reason to capitalize black in mid-sentence.

1Reply

scott connerJun 30

well Robert, the answer is progressive income taxes, if you want to increase domestic production, we need progressive income taxes on businesses and top earners post haste. so, Bernie has the answer.

Reply

RobertJul 1

How will that solve the racist results created by our immigration system and its anti-Black American foundations? Bernie had the answer, yes. He was foursquare against open borders until the latest election campaign, labeling it a Koch Brothers scheme. Which it is.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJul 2

The Koch bothers and AOC want Open Borders. Do they want Open Borders for the same reason(s). Actually, no. Are they willing to work together to subvert immigration enforcement? Yes, they are. Bush was actually the worst on this issue. He wanted Open Borders for economic and racial reasons. Of course, saying "Bush was actually the worst" applies to a lot of things.

Reply

KevinJun 30

"First, there are a lot more white people than black people in this country, so comparing the count of the murdered by itself is meaningless."

It's so hypocritical for your cohort to embrace this whine, all whine trying to discount the crime rates in the black community.

Reply

Michael GoldenbergJun 30

I am excited to know I have a cohort! I just don’t know what it is.

But I don’t think your “black-on-black” crime dog whistle is relevant to the claim to which I replied. Try reading the non-statistic, my perfectly true mathematical fact, and then, if you have something that’s on point, fire away.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

Sorry, you don't like the reality of black-on-black crime. Alas, you can't make it go away. Your feelings will not abolish facts.

1Reply

Starry GordonJun 29

So why don't the White folks riot? It seems like a reasonable response. If your kind of people are being killed, make trouble. It might get some of the killers to think twice before popping off yet another victim.

Reply

Quek6 hr

I think the answer to your question is rooted in how one feels about interactions with the police. There are few cases of the police beating or killing someone that don't start with resisting arrest. It doesn't mean there is approval, but if you hit a cop while being arrested you have bought your beating. What makes anyone think they can hit a cop or resist arrest with no consequences and a belief they should treat you with kid gloves for doing so? Is abuse wrong? yes. Is what happened to Floyd wrong? yes. Was Floyd wrong? yes. Is anyone wrong for resisting arrest? yes. Police arrest, the court sorts it out. Are the police flawed? yes Are the courts flawed? yes. We have formed a more perfect nation, not one without any flaws. Those who promise to be flawless will murder and destroy. How do we know this, because we have historic examples from Stalin to Chavez.

Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 29

Most likely because the majority of whites killed by the police come from a different socio-economic class than, say, the author of White Fragility.

The idea that whites as a class have anything like the sense of racial identity or cohesion that groups targeted by racism possess illustrates the fundamental inadequacy of judgements based on one's subjective experience.

10Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

"Most likely because the majority of whites killed by the police come from a different socio-economic class than, say, the author of White Fragility."

+1

Someone looked up where Robin DiAngelo actually lives. Suffice it to say, that it is not a highly "diverse" area.

7Reply

Starry GordonJun 30

Indeed, I believe poor White people get killed by the police at about the same rate as poor Black people. It's not racial identity they lack, it's class consciousness. Racial identity just confuses them, which I have to suspect is exactly how it's supposed to work.

3Reply

MikeJun 30

The nature of crime in America says more about class than anything else. You will come into conflict with your local cop if you violate laws concerning private property in a Capitalist society. However, I don't think a lot of inside traders get shoot.

Reply

MascotJul 1

Also, this: https://nypost.com/2000/12/28/minority-cops-say-coke-yuppies-get-racial-leniency/

It does not thrill me to link a story like that one to a source as dubious as the New York Post, but it's the only journalistic link that shows up anywhere near the top of the page with my keyword search. I guarantee that the story was covered more widely than that at the time.

Reply

LinJun 30

"So why don't the White folks riot? It seems like a reasonable response."

It isn't, and the reason why should be obvious. With literally millions of potentially violent police interactions per year, it's actually not possible to completely avoid the deaths of unarmed people. It's also inevitable that some of those people will be black (or whatever race you happen to be) and a few of those deaths will be avoidable or improper. By making this the standard, you're setting us up for perpetual conflict and perpetual escalation. It's a negative feed back loop that makes civilization literally impossible. Basically, this is your standard: If the world is not perfect and a cop makes a mistake or even acts abusively, however infrequent, me and my friends get to destroy everything in the vicinity, over and over again, forever. . . . That actually appears to be your position.

1Reply

ajax23 hr

Name one black person or show me a link to one incident where one black was brutalized PROTESTING his rights recently.

Reply

Skutch9 hr

Why would anyone protest their own rights ? Of course you'd pull that request out now that police are under the microscope for their 1,000 murders per year. You understand that the Pentagon got completely out of control due to people blindly supporting every penny sent to them was justified to keep the empire's boot on the neck of the "developing countries" we either colonize or destroy in order to keep the top on top, right ?

Why are you so frightened of people demanding oversight of a public agency who has gone completely off the rails every since the Israeli Mossad started training their trainers ?

Reply

CLJun 29

No grift is useful. So is guilt. The number of people who snapped at me for supporting Sanders because it meant I was "Denying African Americans their agency!" or other BS shows just how useful weaponized guilt can be.

Reply

Mohammad HimarJun 30

The Left whose modus operandi is extreme weaponized guilt - now complains when the table is once turned around. Got it!

1Reply

Skutch9 hr

Ha ! Only the left weaponizes guilt ! You're hilarious !

Reply

Starry GordonJun 29

The author is a member of the bourgeoisie, the top caste in the American political community. This caste is supposed to keep the community functioning properly through its political and economic practices, specifically liberal capitalism and its implicit class war. However, it is clear that it is failing. As it fails, it loses political power. To hang on to power, the bourgeoisie have been pushing identify politics to distract people from the actual class war which is being waged against them. It is no surprise, then, to see a book based on militant identity politics being pushed by bourgeois politicians, academics, business managers, and so on; they're keeping themselves and their kind of people in business. And they are increasingly uneasy, even desperate.

6Reply

JorgeJun 30

Starry:

"To hang on to power, the bourgeoisie have been pushing identify politics to distract people from the actual class war which is being waged against them." I agree with this analysis, without the Marxist trappings.

I believe we are on the cusp of a new kind of social and technological revolution that is uploading and appropriating our entire knowledge base, and threatens to replace the old skills-based economy with AI, while making woke consumer serfs of our children, serving the tech moguls and their AI.

To your list of running dog lackies, I would add Jeff Bezos, VCs and investment bankers, Hollywood stars, Madonna and her ilk, Ivy academia, the elite media and all the lawyers,scientists and others building this rancid future.

1Reply

Bart1502Jun 29

I am in awe of your obviously superior virtue.... You’re such an original “thinker”! Wherever did you come up with “..merely scratches the surface of the structure of racism in our society”. The structure of racism in our society. BALONEY.

4Reply

opusJun 29

Whooooooshhhhhhhh…...

Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

It would be a shame if no one actually read this book because of this uninformed commentary, especially the target audience of “well-meaning” leftists, specifically progressives, who choose to act as if racism is something other people do.

The current strain of leftist anti-identitarianism and anti-essentialism has been fascinating to watch unfold, whether in the more prescient and thoughtful takes such as Richard Rorty’s and Jonathon Haidt’s and the less illuminating such as Mark Lilla’s or Matt’s. Identity politics clearly undergirds much of the illiberal excess on the left, and in the hands of activists and children it exhibits the same banality and misapplications as other -isms. Plenty there to trouble us.

And yet it is no less useful for whites to come to terms with racism as a white problem to be solved by whites; with white identity as the invisible hand in our collective culture; or with the thesis that racism and implicit bias are profuse in whites across the ideological spectrum, not just the leftist fantasy of a sin peculiar to rightists. These and other barely controversial propositions can be explored in this book.

Hand-wringing over identity politics strikes me as futile. The grievances are too legitimate and too damaging to wave away with calls for a new nationalism/patriotism or with sophistic attempts to discredit it by handcuffing it to the latest list of illiberal “outrages” as Matt does here. So another white guy reacts to the concept of white fragility by cranking out several thousand irony-shattering words that only serve to exemplify it. We can do better.

21Reply

DMichaelsJun 29

Who would have guessed that someone who buys DiAngelo's claptrap would come along and try to refute Taibbi's takedown by 1) saying "well, he just exemplifies white fragility" and 2) by calling him a "white guy"?

122Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

There’s no doubt that charges of passive racism (silence is complicity) put whites in the bind you describe. Why not acknowledge that and wrestle with it honestly?

Your reference to this as a takedown is revealing and helps me clarify my reaction. Matt does seem to be devolving into the culture of “owning” and “destroying”

opposing viewpoints that passes for discourse among the logic-you-with-facts crowd. It dawns on me that Matt’s work may be more of that mode than I realized. So thanks for that.

5Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 29

Hysteria about "white supremacy" is the McCarthyism of our time (with no help from Joe Stalin). From "reds under the bed" we have gone to "white supremacists under the bed". Guess what? It ain't real. The richest ethnic groups in America are non-white. "White supremacy" is a useful myth however.

One of the characteristics of our time is that hysteria is frequently inversely related to the facts. In China under Mao, "capitalist roaders" were supposedly everywhere and subverting everything. At that time, the number of actual "captialist roaders" (outside of jails and death camps) was around zero. China has vast number of very real "capitalist roaders" these days, but no hysteria. Hitler was hysterical about the supposedly omnipotent "Jews". The power of penniless refugees is not apparent to me. Hitler knew better. Not to be outdone, Stalin had his "doctors plot" (also involving Jews) and his famous show trials. Khrushchev admitted that it was all a fraud.

Now we have "white supremacy" and "racists under the bed". The very magnitude of the mania shows how false it is. The dominants ideology of our time is "diversity" (really racial quotas). For ever real Klan sympathizer, America has 100 (or 1000) "diversity" fanatics determined to find the "reds under the bed" (make that "racists under the bed").

Racism is very powerful in America, PC racism that is. Just the facts. Let’s try college admissions. Quote

“How much harder is it for an Asian-American applicant? Mr. Zhao and the complaint cite 2009 research by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade that found an Asian-American student must earn an SAT score 140 points higher than a white student, 270 points higher than a Hispanic and 450 points higher than an African-American, all else being equal. So if a white applicant scored 2160 on the SAT, lower than last year’s Harvard average, an Asian-American would need to hit 2300, well into the 99% percentile, to have an equal chance at getting in.”

So racism is actually quite real in the U.S. Anti-Asian racism is pervasive and profound.

If “white racism” and "white supremacy" were even trivially real, whites would be the richest group. The truth is otherwise and the numbers aren’t even close. Average family income for Indian Americans ($107,390), Jews ($97,500), Taiwanese ($85,566), all Asians ($74,245) is greater than Whites ($59,698). As can you see, non-white ethnic groups are at the top and Jews earn (far) more than non-Jewish whites. "White supremacy" is a useful myth however. Don't give it up.

20Reply

mbeakenJul 1

Overwhelming the top positions of wealth and power in this country are held by whites. This doesn’t mean there are not millions of poor white people who are struggling. Regarding the statistics on the Asian populations you provided, I would say you have intentionally left out any statistics on the wealth/income/education levels of black and brown skinned people because you can have one of two reactions to those gaps: 1. There is something biologically or behaviorally wrong with black and brown people or 2. Systemic racism exists. To your other points: Asian population (specifically Indian, Korean, Taiwanese, many Chinese, etc) statistics reflect waves of wealthy and highly educated immigrants who attain highly skilled positions (both recently, but starting in the 1960s). There are also poorer Asian subpopulations that are not discussed as often. I would also add that anti-Asian racism is very much alive and well and it is almost more socially acceptable to stereotype and mock Asians than any other racial group in the US. My last point would be that colorism has always been a part of the racism of this country, and a myriad of studies and data have shown that darker skinned people (even within a race) fare worse in this country.

Reply

MascotJun 30

One or two cherry-picked data points don't carry enough weight to falsify white supremacy as a historical reality in this country. That said, your imagining that they do may be simply an honest mistake.

You've misapprehended the phenomenon of white supremacy, which is- fortunately- more about legacy impacts than present-day official policies. But- unfortunately- the burdened past accounts for a lot of present-day injustice.

There's a tendency by many Americans to use the word "history" as a synonym for "nothing to see there, move on." If only it were that simple.

The self-ordained wokies have different problems in regard to superficial approaches to history: it's as easy to cherry-pick data points that serve to conflate the impact of the past with the present- as if nothing has changed- as it is to dismiss the past as over and done with.

Neither extreme gets a researcher within range of authentic historical insight.

There's also the fallacy of Presentism, which gets exploited for the purpose of partisan ideological narratives of all sorts- including both neoJacobin statue-topplers on the Left and the lunatic fringe of White Supremacists who would reimpose slavery as a "natural economic order." Historical scholars worth their salt view Presentism as a flaw to be avoided. It's a travesty of the discipline.

6Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

The very high incomes of Jews and some Asians (dark-skinned) are hardly cherry-picked data points. Japanese-Americans were intensely discriminated against for 100+ years. They were locked up in internment camps during WWII. They are (by some measures) the most successful group in America.

Jews have been discriminated against forever. They are (as a group) highly successful.

Real "white supremacy" disappeared about 60 years ago. In the period when "white supremacy" was real, black and white incomes slowly converged. Since the Civil Rights act of 1965, convergence has slowed or stopped.

1Reply

MascotJun 30

You're still relying on less than a handful of cherry-picked data points, and they don't gain any more probative value just because you insist that they aren't cherry-picked. All you have is a useless shorthand summary that you imagine closes the case.

2Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

Family income data is cherry-picked? Good to know.

So let’s try some other data

“The police kill far more whites (see the cases of Justine Damond and Tony Timpa) than blacks. Of course, whites don't riot (these days). I tried Google with "justine damond" and "police killing" and got 2,420 hits. By contrast, "george floyd" with "police killing" got 2.3 million hits. "tony timpa" with "police killing" got 2,750 hits. Some lives are more important than others.”

And

“Using data from Houston, Texas – where we have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified –we find, after controlling for suspect demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics.”

And

In 2018, New York State spent $24,040 per-student on public education. Utah spent $7,628. But don’t worry, students in Utah do better than kids in New York State.

Reply

MascotJun 30

You don't seem to know the definition of cherry-picked statistics, which are data points pulled out of context if they happen to serve one's favored position and deployed as a substitute for a reasoned argument. With a scrim of "objective truth", because numbers.

I'm sure it's all very impressive, even persuasive, for the aliterates who glean all of their erudition from comment formats where one paragraph is disdained as a "text wall", if they're already inclined to sympathize with the position being espoused.

But some of us still read history books extensively, do our own keyword searches, and have also had enough real-life interaction with Americans from a wide array of ethnicities, classes, and regions to be wary of reducing the stories of entire populations to a few numerical data points and correlations. Just as we're skeptical about the information value of binge-watching Youtube clips exclusively devoted to spoon-feeding racial drama narratives, or diving into the guided-meditation rabbit holes dug by the far right lunatic fringe of the blogosphere.

2Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

I choose to be a member of the ‘reality-based community’. You choose to be a member of the ‘emotion-based community’. Each of us makes their choices.

Reply

MascotJun 30

That's a worthless turf claim, not a fact claim.

2Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

Family income data is cherry-picked? Good to know.

So let’s try some other data

“The police kill far more whites (see the cases of Justine Damond and Tony Timpa) than blacks. Of course, whites don't riot (these days). I tried Google with "justine damond" and "police killing" and got 2,420 hits. By contrast, "george floyd" with "police killing" got 2.3 million hits. "tony timpa" with "police killing" got 2,750 hits. Some lives are more important than others.”

And

“Using data from Houston, Texas – where we have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified –we find, after controlling for suspect demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics.”

And

In 2018, New York State spent $24,040 per-student on public education. Utah spent $7,628. But don’t worry, students in Utah do better than kids in New York State.

Reply

Thom WilliamsJul 1

Re: <b>Peter Schaeffer</b>

Why are you copy & pasting your previous comments? The false equivalency inherent in the original posting is not corrected by merely parroting your earlier nonsense.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJul 1

Facts are a problem. Repeated facts are a repeated problem.

Reply

Mascot5 hr

no, when a handfuls of data points is tossed out as if it explains itself as a lazy substitute for originally authored commentary, and then repeated, that's merely table-pounding.

Reply

Thom WilliamsJul 1

As I have noticed on several occasions your "cherry picking" of facts (often considered selective reasoning) is the actual "problem".

Reply

ConchJun 30

"But- unfortunately- the burdened past accounts for a lot of present-day injustice. "

Actually it is the RECENT past---legislation passed since the Clinton 1990s---that most burdens black and whites and everyone other color in the 99%. All of this antiracism hoo-hah is basically Dem-sanctioned noise to misdirect attention away from this fact. Read Thomas Frank, "Listen, Liberal," and then come back to this thread with your book report.

This is not ot deny effects of racism. But the current program isn't going to lead anywhere, politically. It is based on shoving noses into racism and racializing every tiny thing. That is obvious. It is not going to lead to any kind of real political movement. Why isn't BLM making speicific political demands: single-payer health care; cancellation of student debt; money spent on infrastructure and houseing instead of trillions going to Wall Street; etc. The movement's demands are childish and pathetic. They will never lead a genuine poitical movement that improves the conditions of the whole 99%. "Color-tested" is similar to "means-tested." FDR's genius was to grasp that SS must be for all. Later, Medicare must be for all. Not "just" for the poor. Whining about grievances does not substitute for a genuine poltiical program. It is truly pathetic that Biden ---one of the worst of the racist, two-faced Dems---is profiting from this race kabuki.

1Reply

MascotJun 30

"But the current program isn't going to lead anywhere, politically. It is based on shoving noses into racism and racializing every tiny thing."

You don't have to lecture me on that point; we agree, as my other posted comments should show.

"Actually it is the RECENT past---legislation passed since the Clinton 1990s"

The worst impacts of legacy racism derive from formerly enslaved people given their "freedom" in 1865-66- "freed" to make their own way in the world their ancestors were carried off to. With zero assets, no real estate property, no social capital, and no literacy skills. And then later on, after some of them managed to make it anyway, they got their most successful communities burned to the ground and they were subjected to forced expulsion. (The same thing happened in the same era to the Chinese in parts of California, fwtw.)

That's the real core of the injustice.

On the positive side, for milennia it's been the historical norm for nations and empires to cover up disgraceful and unpleasant history like that, and here we are in the United States of America, airing it out. Which is part of what American idealism is all about.

3Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

"The same thing happened in the same era to the Chinese in parts of California, fwtw."

And Chinese-Americans are poor, criminal, educationally disadvantaged, unemployed, etc.

Not exactly.

1Reply

angelOJun 30

Did the Chinese come here voluntarily? Were they ever considered to be property? Were they paid for their labor? Did their children get sold off to other locales? Were there laws that were designed to criminalize their behavior so that they could be exploited as prison labor?

Did white people gather by the hundreds, in towns and cities all over America, to see them lynched? Were the Chinese written out of all of the wealth-building handouts that turned the mass of poor white people into the American middle class? Did the government devise policies to make sure that they couldn't live wherever they saw fit? Are unarmed men Chinese being killed, with impunity, by police?

1Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

A, Wow is that poor. The Chinese who came to America where typically “coolies”. The traffic in “coolies” was called (at the time), the “pig trade” (as opposed to opium that was called the “poison trade”). They (the Chinese) were hardly upscale and thrived in America anyway.

Of course, they were not literal slaves. However, slavery ended 160 years ago. In the many decades after slavery ended, black and white incomes slowly converged… Until the “Great Society”. LBJ’s “Great Society” coincides with the end of black/white income convergence.

“Did white people gather by the hundreds, in towns and cities all over America, to see them lynched?”

The worst lynching in American history (by far) was of Chinese. I guess you didn’t know that. It would appear that (at least for you) “Chinese Lives Don’t Matter”.

“Were the Chinese written out of all of the wealth-building handouts that turned the mass of poor white people into the American middle class?”

No, and nor were any other group.

“Did the government devise policies to make sure that they couldn't live wherever they saw fit?”

No, and nor were any other group.

“Are unarmed men Chinese being killed, with impunity, by police?”

R. Fryer’s (black, Harvard, NBER) work is to be commended in this context. Let me quote

“Using data from Houston, Texas – where we have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified –we find, after controlling for suspect demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics.”

Reply

MascotJun 30

No one learns anything by oversimplifying, reducing situations like these to caricature and stereotype.

There have been several waves of immigration to the US from China. The most pronounced wave of Chinese legal immigration was to the West Coast of Canada and the US, following the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to mainland sovereignty. Most of that wave was literate, educated, skillled, had access to global networks of social and monetary capital. Some were outright wealthy. ("Anti-immigration" Donald Trump has done absolutely nothing to curb money/asset parking and real estate investment through Delaware corporations by non-American citizens, which not only distorts the real estate economy in favor of the global wealthy, it's a mega-money laundering and tax avoidance tactic.)

But it isn't easy for all Chinese in this country, particularly those smuggled in by human traffickers. Many of those immigrants are poor, involved in criminal activity, or employed in ways that amount to involuntary servitude.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/13/cookas-tale

As with most voluntary immigrants to the US in the 20th century, the Chinese have a uniformly high level of working literacy/numeracy in at least one language. You can't buy that kind of social capital.

1Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

“Most of that wave was literate, educated, skillled, had access to global networks of social and monetary capital.”

Are you suggesting that “white racism” and “white supremacy” are not all-important, omnipotent, decisive, pervasive, etc.? That’s heresy of course, because we all know that ‘white racism’ is the most important thing on earth (and probably all other planets as well).

It is quite true, that the post-1965 Asian immigrants to the US were/are considerable more elite than the earlier waves. The earlier waves were distinctly down-scale, at least when they arrived. So were the immigrant Jews of the period (downscale as a group).

However, the earlier waves of Asian immigrants were highly successful anyway (as were the Jews of the same period). Of course, they faced much higher levels of discrimination and prejudice, but were highly successful in spite of the obstacles they faced.

However, Asian success did not end with the earlier waves. Today, the children of poor Asian immigrants are excelling in the very same public school systems where NAMs are failing. For example, 75% of the kids going to the Stuyvesant (one of the specialized high schools in New York City) are Asian. Their parents are hardly rich. Around half of the kids are eligible for free lunches. The kids eligible for free lunches are disproportionately Asian.

This has been true for a long time.

Indeed, a generation ago Scientific American published a study showing that the children of poor Vietnamese immigrants were thriving in the same schools where black and Hispanic children were failing. See Nathan Caplan, Marcella Choy, and John K. Whitmore, “Indochinese Refugee Families and Academic Achievement,” Scientific American (1992), 36-42. Quote

"The scholastic success of Asian children is well recognized. Their stunning performance—particularly in the realm of science and mathematics—has prompted American educators to visit Japanese and Taiwanese schools in an effort to unearth the foundations of these achievements. Experts recommend that American schools adopt aspects of their Asian counter-parts, such as a longer school year or more rigorous tasks, in order to raise the scholastic level of US. students. Yet there is no need to go abroad to understand why these children do so well. The achievement of Asian-American students indicates that much may be learned about the origins of their triumph within the American school system itself.

More specifically, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, devastating political and economic circumstances forced many Vietnamese, Lao and Chinese-Vietnamese families to seek a new life in the US. This resettlement of boat people from Indochina offered a rare opportunity to examine the academic achievement of their children. These young refugees had lost months, even years of forma schooling while living in relocation camps. Like their parents, they suffered disruption and trauma as they escaped from Southeast Asia. Despite their hardships and with little knowledge of English, the children quickly adapted to their new schools and began to excel."

Reply

ConchJun 30

You missed my point.

1Reply

UBJun 30

This is an excellent post. Historically, the degree of hysteria in a witch-hunt tends to be inversely proportional to the number of witches being hunted.

1Reply

Skutch9 hr

Except a good post would have facts where the poster inserted his opinion.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

Witches are a huge problem. They are everywhere. The best proof that a person is a witch, is that they deny it. That's proof of witchcraft.

1Reply

Michael GoldenbergJun 30

They’re not under the bed and they’re not a fantasy. Only the disingenuous and willfully blind fail to acknowledge the facts.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

Facts are a problem. Let's try a few.

If “white racism” and "white supremacy" were even trivially real, whites would be the richest group. The truth is otherwise and the numbers aren’t even close. Average family income for Indian Americans ($107,390), Jews ($97,500), Taiwanese ($85,566), all Asians ($74,245) is greater than Whites ($59,698). As can you see, non-white ethnic groups are at the top and Jews earn (far) more than non-Jewish whites. "White supremacy" is a useful myth however. Don't give it up.

1Reply

Michael GoldenbergJun 30

https://www.facebook.com/groups/178098736933840/?ref=share

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

I followed the link. Just the usual “inequality proves racism” nonsense. Of course, if it was true, then “racism” must favor Jews and dark-skinned Asians. Check the facts.

“If “white racism” and "white supremacy" were even trivially real, whites would be the richest group. The truth is otherwise and the numbers aren’t even close. Average family income for Indian Americans ($107,390), Jews ($97,500), Taiwanese ($85,566), all Asians ($74,245) is greater than Whites ($59,698). As can you see, non-white ethnic groups are at the top and Jews earn (far) more than non-Jewish whites. "White supremacy" is a useful myth however. Don't give it up.”

So “racists” in America are so clever that they have made Jews and Asians the richest groups while discriminating against blacks. That’s crazy thinking.

1Reply

Michael GoldenbergJun 30

So much for my earlier comment that you're a smart guy and can figure things out. You're just Jordan Peterson without the platform. Who knew that Jews were a race, that Indians, Taiwanese, etc., were brought to these shores in chains and kept as slaves for three centuries. I learn new "facts" from denialists every day.

Here's more for you to brush off. Seems to be your strongest quality, along with putting words in other people's mouths, of course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epjb-A6vOhQ

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

Slavery was 160 years ago. Get over it. The milk carton has expired.

In the decades after slavery, black incomes converged with white incomes… Until the Great Society took over. Since then not so much. This historical reality makes the slavery thesis look rather bad.

As for Jews… They are not a “race”, but they are genetically distinct (more of an ethnicity). See

“Studies Show Jews' Genetic Similarity - The New York Times”

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html

and

“Genetic studies on Jews”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews#Mt-DNA_of_Ashkenazi_Jews

Reply

Michael GoldenbergJun 30

The more you're pushed, the lower you go. Gee, the Holocaust was 75 years ago. Get over it, right?

You can save your breath, Peter: it smells awful. Like Jordan Petersen's without the phony academic justifications for the reactionary b.s.

I bet you're a riot on patriarchy. But I'll live without knowing your take on that or anything else, thanks.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

I think it is obvious that because of the Holocaust, Jews have been failures at everything, around the world. Everybody knows that.

2Reply

ScottJul 1

If you like that, you'll LOVE this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

Reply

Peter SchaefferJul 1

Mein Kampf has been republished as a feminist tract. Predictably, the feminists didn't get that they were being trolled and loved it.

Reply

ScottJul 1

I see: only "facts" that support your skewed world view matter to you.

Got it.

Reply

UBJun 30

what facts?

Reply

MWayJun 29

Who needs fact-based understanding when you can just rely on emotion?

10Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

I think it’s asking a lot for those suffering racism to not be emotional. And with so much science positing that facts don’t change people’s minds — with highly educated people being particularly resistant — I think emotional engagement is unavoidable.

6Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 29

The police kill far more whites (see the cases of Justine Damond and Tony Timpa) than blacks. Of course, whites don't riot (these days). I tried Google with "justine damond" and "police killing" and got 2,420 hits. By contrast, "george floyd" with "police killing" got 2.3 million hits. "tony timpa" with "police killing" got 2,750 hits. Some lives are more important than others.

2Reply

SkutchJun 30

Whites riot from either winning or losing sporting events. WTF planet have you been living on ? Cops kill powerless people which include all races.

3Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

The context is rather clearly police activity and yes, white people don't riot in response to police killing of whites. Sports riots do occur. However, they seem to attract people of all races. The worst sports riot in modern times was in Egypt.

Reply

SkutchJun 30

So you're saying there were no whites rioting in the Floyd riots ? Are you serious ??? What a steaming load of generalization ! White people never riot unless other races are included... Do you actually believe that horse shit ? Can you back your BS claim ?

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

Read what I wrote "The context is rather clearly police activity and yes, white people don't riot in response to police killing of whites." That just happens to be true.

Reply

SkutchJul 1

They are also far less likely to be killed by police per capita than blacks. You forgot to mention that blacks are a minority race so it would stand to reason that overall more whites are killed by police.

Factor in that more whites can afford legal counsel than blacks and the fact the police force has been infiltrated by white supremacists and you can understand why whites don't riot, they don't need to.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJul 1

Asians are less likely to be shot by the police than whites. Obviously this must be because of bias.

Reply

SkutchJul 1

Funny how you just throw crap out there as if your opinion was fact.

Reply

SkutchJul 1

Funny how you seem to be so emotionally attached to all of your "free market facts".

“We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

-- Karl Rove

Keep claiming science is on your side and go ahead and throw Jesus back in there if you want, but if you can't figure out that science has been under attack for decades at the very least, I don't have time for your rhetorical squirming.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJul 1

Facts are a problem… We can not abolish racism until we abolish facts…

From R. Fryer (Harvard, black,NBER)

“Using data from Houston, Texas – where we have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified –we find, after controlling for suspect demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics.”

From Joseph Cesario (PNAS)

“There is widespread concern about racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings and that these disparities reflect discrimination by White officers. Existing databases of fatal shootings lack information about officers, and past analytic approaches have made it difficult to assess the contributions of factors like crime. We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings.”

Reply

SkutchJul 1

Facts are most definitely a problem;

National Bureau of Economic Research

Jump to navigation

Jump to search

A December 1, 2002, news story in the New York Times [1] on the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., of Cambridge, MA, called the institution non-partisan but failed to identify a penny of the $10 million it receives in conservative philanthropic underwriting.

"Reporter David Leonhardt found time to report that the bureau, headed by Martin S. Feldstein, guru to Bush-economics, is the 'nation's premier economic research organization,' but couldn't do a simple Google search to determine where it gets its money.

"But reporter Leonhardt 'does' have some interesting things to say about Harvard University:

"Still, Ec10, as it is known at Harvard, is hardly neutral -- in its readings or its lectures -- and its point of view contributes a good deal to his importance. Over the last two decades, thousands of Harvard undergraduates have received a decidedly anti-tax, free-market-leaning introduction to economics.

"And there's this gem about Feldstein's partisanship and his crappy economic analysis, 'driven' by partisanship:

"For his part, Mr. Feldstein has shown little taste since the 1980's for straying from the Republican Party line. In 1992, he predicted that the Clinton administration's tax increase would stifle economic growth and do little to erase the deficit...In 2001, when President Bush was forming his cabinet, Mr. Feldstein and his wife began a Boston Globe article by writing, 'Paul O'Neill was an inspired choice for secretary of the Treasury.' Mr. Feldstein is also on the board of Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company with strong Republican ties.

"And the next time you hear someone refer to Feldstein as from Harvard, remember that, according to Feldstein,

"I have a Harvard office, but I hardly ever use it..."

Between 1985 and 2001, the organization received $9,963,301 in 73 grants from only four foundations:

John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife)

Smith Richardson Foundation

Facts are now "free market" acquisitions so we have to make sure we know who pays for the "facts" we use no matter what we are trying to say.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJul 1

Of course, the NBER must go. So must the NAS.

Smash truth! Lysenko rules! The Sun orbits the Earth!

Reply

SkutchJul 1

"Read what I wrote"

Reply

Peter SchaefferJul 1

Forget Reds under the bed. Forget racists under the bed. There is an NBER under you bed. Do not try to sleep at night because the NBER under your bed is going to get you. Be afraid, be very afraid of the NBER. Krugman warned you. The NBER is the agency of the devil. Quote from Krugman.

“Just a quick note. I’ve noticed some people latching on to the fact that Reinhart-Rogoff initially released their once famous, now infamous piece as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, and wondering about the NBER’s role. I’ve even seen the Bureau described as a right-wing think tank, in thrall to Pete Peterson.

Actually, the truth is more prosaic.

The NBER is best described, I’d say, as the old-boy network of economics made flesh. There are a couple of NBER offices, but they’re small; what the organization mainly consists of is its associates and what they do. In many sub-fields of economics, just about anyone well-known in the profession is an NBER research associate (yes, me too); it’s normal for these associates to release new research as NBER working papers.”

You see, Krugman warned you. There is an NBER under your bed and it is very dangerous.

Reply

SkutchJul 1

If you want to know what is a bigger problem than "free market facts" it would be extrapolating facts out of data that isn't sourced. What data base ? where ? You're trying to use predictions from a model as fact. That's not the same thing.

Nice try though. It might work at the RNC convention but not on me.

Reply

MascotJun 30

You're leaving out a few points in order to provide that conclusion:

1) Situations of chronic injustice have a way of eventually leading to eruptions on the part of the aggrieved populations. A particular event is merely the tinder for the fire; what really counts is the amount of kindling that was gathered around it. Consider the 1770 Boston Massacre; in isolation, it was simply a matter of the British troops firing in self-defense on a mob that was tormenting them, and those troops were in fact acquitted of murder charges (defended in court by John Adams, no less.) In context, the harassment and violence was about popular opposition to the wider policy of being remotely policed by the British Crown. And one thing led to another.

2) We're in the era of the Phone Camera now. So a lot of things that used to be relegated to hearsay accusations are now documented. And sometimes that visual evidence is so dramatic, and the aspects of what's depicted are so indisputable, that it draws a lot more attention than text accounts of the event.

3) The video evidence of the rioting, vandalism, looting, and arson in regard to the most recent civil disorders makes it clear that (some) whites do riot, along with (some) African Americans, Latinos, and Asians. All of which is deplorable, and counterproductive.

Fortunately, the rioting is at an order of magnitude less than what it was in the 1960s. And most of the wishful thinking about the prospect of it increasing appears to be coming from the White Supremacist Right.

3Reply

Mohammad HimarJun 30

@Evan Rentschler "logic-you-with-facts crowd" -- So reason, science, logic, and epiricism is useless and counter-productive when discussing race? How foolish is that?

2Reply

Evan RentschlerJul 1

It’s a reference to a certain internet “type” who insists on arguing over the formatting in the third pie chart in Appendix F in order to derail debate and avoid engaging in a humane manner.

Reply

BangkokianJun 29

This comment should be pinned to the top of the page.

4Reply

ScottJul 1

Racists don't care about the people they dehumanize by stuffing them into a category.

It's the hallmark sign of racism.

1Reply

KWSterlingJun 29

How? If being color blind is racist, and paying attention to color is racist, and basically everything is racist, then nothing is. And you have no argument. It's hysterical, and also incredibly frightening, that people think everything now is about color, and we can't escape it, and we're doomed to behave in XYZ ways b/c of our color, BUT BY GOD KEEP DEMONIZING WHITE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ENEMY. When frankly, my dear Scarlett, white people have no more control over the situation of their birth then you do.

The example of Jackie Robinson is telling. White people were racist for keeping him out. Then they were racist for letting him in. And now, when we celebrate "42" day each year in MLB, then that's racist, too. Because it's racist to think that Jackie had anything at all going for him as a man who put up with a lot of abuse while pioneering the participation of blacks in baseball, which white men allowed, which was racist, but thinking Jackie was great is racist, and OMG does the circle ever end??

When loving each other is dismissed as a solution, then society has no hope. You've written yourself into a corner and there's no way out.

67Reply

Grand Moff TarkinJun 29

The scam anti-racists that Taibbi is condemning want to create a situation where the problem can never be solved and that the solution is to hire more and more anti-racist consultants to find more and more racism so that more consultants need to be hired.

Real anti-racists, like MLK Jr want to heal society so that the most virulent forms are racism are banished and we can all just get along. I am Jewish. Every so often a non-Jewish friend will make a seemingly anti-Semitic comment. Instead of shaming them and forcing an apology, I ask them what they meant. At this point their eyes open wide and they start apologizing like hell. My response is, you don't need to apologize; you did not hurt me or hurt my feelings; I know you are a good person. Just tell me what you meant. They then tell me. I am not trying to win an argument or score points or make them feel bad. Later on, they might be talking and then interrupt themselves to say they are going to use another potentially anti-semitic term. We talk about the term and then get on with talking.

25Reply

CLJun 29

I think the other scam is trying to make simple interactions like that into overly-legalized gyrations. So rather than saying "what do you mean?" we have to say: “Would you be willing to grant me the opportunity to repair the racism I perpetrated toward you in that meeting?”

Language must now become a tortured obstacle to actual communication.

11Reply

mbeakenJul 1

No, “paying attention to race” is NOT racist. And who is saying whites were racist for letting Robinson play? And who is saying we shouldn’t celebrate him (as DiAngelo says, we just need to tell the true/whole story). Your whole argument is based around refuting a point that no one is making.

Reply

MattJun 29

1. Ad hominem, that Matt's opinion doesn't matter because he's another 'white guy

2. Non sequitur, conflating individuals with populations

3. Straw man, asserting that Matt is attempting to 'wave away' legitimate grievances by exposing the POMO sophistry of Di'angelo

We can indeed do better, it starts with the Socratic method.

46Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

I dispute the straw man claim. If anything, Matt is the one foisting one on his readers by focusing on the essentialist aspects of DiAmgelo’s argument while ignoring all practical applications the text offers.

As for ad hominem, I indulged myself while responding to someone who asserts that this is the “dumbest thing ever written.” Everyone is welcome to their opinion, but Matt’s ratio of gonzo to thoughtful got the better of him throughout the post.

It is interesting that the most prominent leftist purveyors of anti-identitarian arguments are white guys. There’s a thin line between ad hominem and observation.

5Reply

UBJun 30

That's not "interesting", it's the inevitable consequence of *specifically targeting* white guys as reprobates, sinners, and oppressors. Wow, it's interesting that my anti-rabbit eradication program seems to be resisted mainly by rabbits. Interesting! P.S. I'm not white in the slightest

5Reply

ConchJun 30

"It is interesting that the most prominent leftist purveyors of anti-identitarian arguments are white guys."

Not true. Many people of color recognize that the hegemony of the thought police and the heads I win tails you lose version of ferreting out racism north south east and west is bad for them personally and for African Americans generally.

6Reply

angelOJun 30

wtf is a "people of color"? The book focuses on the foundational divide in America, which is black and "white." White meaning a social caste, not a phenotype, that includes pretty much everyone OTHER than native black people.

1Reply

ConchJun 30

I expect you understood my point despite your dissatisfaction with the nomenclature preferred by quite a few people of color. Such as the historian, member of the UCBerkeley history faculty, who recently wrote a letter making this very point.

2Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 30

There are certainly notable exceptions like John McWhorter and Francis Fukuyama in recent times, but I could expand the list of White males with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Michael Tomaskey and the list goes on.

I’d add that one of the more interesting storylines this election cycle is black voters supporting Biden in droves. One reasonable interpretation is that identity politics carries far less weight than perceived electability for many black Dems, at least this year.

1Reply

Isaac PJul 1

“one of the more interesting storylines this election cycle is black voters supporting Biden in droves.”

I thought that the only reason Biden carried the nomination after an abysmal start was that he was going to get a huge boost from black voters in South Carolina, and other states. How is it an “interesting” storyline, if it was entirely expected? And how can you read a “reasonable interpretation” into something that was taken for granted from the outset?

Reply

Evan RentschlerJul 1

As you say, Biden got off to a poor start. If you buy the narrative that many black voters’ primary concern is an electable Dem, it’s just as plausible that black voters might have looked elsewhere.

Clyburn’s endorsement also appears to have been crucial in S.C. I’m not sure that was preordained.

You may have access to a lot more inside information than I do. It never seemed a given to me.

Reply

Unladen ParrotJun 29

Logic and debate (and the attendant avoidance of logical fallacies) wasn't resolving Black/white racial gaps rapidly enough and needs to be abandoned under the latest "thinking" on the left.

3Reply

ScottJul 1

Right.. now it's time to smash store fronts a la "krystalnacht" and REALLY do something.

Fucking assholes.

4Reply

SkutchJun 29

I wasn't aware logical debate was ever happening surrounding this issue on either side of the fake left/right paradigm that obscures the true top/bottom divide.

Please show us examples of how the fake left/right were resolving racial gaps created as cover for the elite......

2Reply

Unladen ParrotJun 29

I'm not familiar with the fake left/right paradigm you are pointing to (but open to the possibility). I think back to Milton Friedman vs. Phil Donahue or Baldwin vs. Buckley type of vigorous discussions. I'm not sure there are many recent examples (featuring established intellectuals vs. youtube personalities) due to pressures around platforming as endorsement (perhaps Jordan Peterson vs. Michael Eric Dyson).

Reply

WazoomannJun 29

But, but, the greeks had slaves?

5Reply

Adam GoldsteinJun 29

And Muslims still do today...

2Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

Why the deflection?

3Reply

scott connerJun 30

as do Israelis and Indians and US corrections facilities

1Reply

jhnwlkJul 1

As does the U.S. where immigrant seasonal farmworkers are exploited and barely paid a subsistent wage.

Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

So, why didn't you use it instead of throwing out unsupported accusations?

Reply

GuestJun 29

The real grievances are real, but that does not make the bullshit less bullshit. White fragility is just bullshit.

40Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

Except for the many examples of it being expressed right here in real time.

2Reply

CertexJun 30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4SAIOp7Q3U

Reply

QuietlikeJun 29

Elevation of collective identity over individual identity only ends in Hatfields and McCoys. When has it ever ended well?

The grievances won't be solved by more identitarianism, only worsened. Growing up in mostly black schools, I saw the disempowering nature of bad parents telling their kids the system was rigged against them, robbing them of agency.

If the refs are biased against you, walking off the field isn't the thing to do. Keep playing, and try to win in spite of the biased refs. The racists have less power than they ever have, but the identitarian message is a way to feel ok in the short term as you walk off the field. In the long term, you fall into the helpless despair of victimhood.

It's obvious you didn't grow up in a diverse place, with lots of friends of different races. You'd realize how weird and unnatural this all is if you had. People are individuals first. Immutable characteristics are the least interesting thing about anyone.

The book sucks. I read it. It has no data behind it, and even less scientific thought. In fact, these idiots in the grievance disciplines don't even use the scientific method. It's just a bunch of sweeping generalizations that could be ranted by a drunk uncle, disguised with fancy jargon that fails to hide it's absurdity.

39Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

I actually do have a lot friends of different races. I’ve never found that it made me immune to bias, and I’ve done and said things that my friends excused or were too nice to point out over the years as ignorant or biased.

I don’t know what data would satisfy people on this topic. I’m in a position to discuss the book’s ideas with black family members on a continual basis and most of what she’s writing about is reflective of their experience. Again, I don’t espouse every tenet it proposes, but I’ve found it helpful the last couple of years.

As for identitarianism, I’m neither for nor against. It’s simply something that must be acknowledged and understood. I don’t think we can move forward until that happens.

1Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 29

You "don't know what data would satisfy people on this topic"?

Then what's your basis for arguing at all, since you admit that you have no idea of how to convince others?

Sounds like an excuse for substituting opinion for evidence.

3Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 30

You’re verging on non sequitur. Demands for evidence or data to support every point are a transparent bid to derail discussion. “What data would satisfy...” is a rhetorical comment on this bad faith mentality which you seem to be (unconsciously?) exhibiting.

2Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 30

Apparently you don't know what a non sequitur is.

Providing evidence/data for one's opinions is an elementary obligation of intellectually honest discussion. If you do not accept that obligation then I'd say it is you who are exhibiting "bad faith".

Your statement that "I don’t know what data would satisfy people on this topic. " seems to make it plain that your opinion has no evidentiary basis, or at least not one you're prepared to present.

1Reply

ScottJul 1

"The book sucks. I read it. It has no data behind it, and even less scientific thought. In fact, these idiots in the grievance disciplines don't even use the scientific method. It's just a bunch of sweeping generalizations that could be ranted by a drunk uncle, disguised with fancy jargon that fails to hide it's absurdity."

New York Times Book Review after reading Mein Kampf, c. 1935.

1Reply

hierochloeJun 30

Your last paragraph describes exactly how I feel every time I listen to Jordan Peterson.

1Reply

SkepticJun 29

Great comment.

1Reply

chaseofbaseJun 29

“ Identity politics clearly undergirds much of the illiberal excess on the left, and in the hands of activists and children it exhibits the same banality and misapplications as other -isms.“

lmao what in the hell is this even trying to say. Was this generated by a “think piece” AI?

14Reply

QuietlikeJun 29

I work on predictive algorithms/deep learning algos for a living. The way the grievance disciplines teach students like this guy is similar to training NLP algorithms:

Feed them training data (shitty unscientific essays), have them write their own essays, and grade them not for writing skill or knowledge of content, but for how much they parrot the professors radical beliefs. When the student is perfectly mimicking, the training is complete.

Not unlike a deep learning text generator, they don't understand what they are writing. They just spew it out.

The (oppressed group here) studies majors really are the Special Olympics of Academia, and I feel guilty for denigrating the athletes by comparing them to these morons.

25Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

Nice theory, but I’m too old to have learned much at the academy.

You can always ask me to clarify something I’ve written. Or you can make baseless claims about my motivations that reinforce your worldview. Whatever floats your boat.

1Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 29

I think you need to clarify your criticisms of Taibbi's piece. All I see you doing is dismissing his points without addressing them

5Reply

Joe EagarJun 29

I should be clearer. America discriminates against poor people. So long as globalization continues poor black people will never get ahead; it is literally impossible for them to do so. No amount of action by white people can change that--except ending globalization.

11Reply

RemJun 29

All of our mainstream political dialogue until 2016 was designed to cover for the fact that globalism in its current form is a race to the bottom and only benefits those who can afford to benefit from it. The parties are split in just the right way to ensure nothing ever changes beyond superficial identity and morality policing BS. Trump was the first breakaway from that, and Bernie almost the second, but they really put their foot down on that one. Are any of you principled progressives willing to acknowledge the threat a puppet president like Biden poses for the republic? I won't ask you to vote for someone you hate, but please don't directly consent to the end of American democracy. Look what they did to your guy, and how they bought off Warren, these people are possessed.

24Reply

SkutchJun 29

It's cute how you think elections matter and that Trump isn't a globalist. He's just looking for leverage to increase his own fame and fortune. Didn't you read his book ?

2Reply

RemJun 30

You seem really committed to reinforcing outdated narratives and playing GOTCHA with people's words. You aren't arguing in good faith, or even offering any relevant specifics, you're trying to derail the discussion.

4Reply

Filius RomaJun 29

This is very interesting because I think anti-globalism in itself is a form of racism. Why? While I agree that globalism ultimately benefits the rich ruling class the most, it’s impossible to deny that globalism also helps poor countries to get out of their economic rut?

The way I like at it is, why should Western countries be the only ones that benefit from capitalism? What’s wrong with the citizens of Asia, Africa and Latin America now having access to capital to command the buying power that most of the developed world has enjoyed for decades?

Reply

tom mitchellJun 29

The transition mechanism is the missing ingredient. If you can find a place where there are 25 million literate 12-year-olds available to work 72 hours per week for $1 per day, plus living in barracks and eating cold rice, you may profitably replace 5 million US heads of family making $22 per hour in a 35-hour week with health benefits and pension plans. If the 25 million pre- adolescents produce exactly the same as 5 million US heads of family, the transfer of profit -- the 'surplus value' -- generally goes to the consumer, the employer, and the capitalist. You can see how the transition is a form of colonialism, only it is sponsored by the self-colonizing government that encourages both slave labor and child labor. Your argument has merit, but the details of the transition process can be ugly, and end up exploiting the production workers, in fact forcing them into conflict with one another.

4Reply

ConchJun 30

Gosh, Filius, your rosey view of globalism suggests to me that you do not understand very much about gloablism and international finance. For example---just one small one---I expect you don't understand a jot about tax havens, a prime mechanism of globalism that facilitates the creaming off and hidingn of profits made off the back of from developing nations that globatlists "invest" in. Please watch The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8

Obviously this is somewhat off the USA racism topic, but it is central to the globalist agenda, and this is what has to be challenged for peope of all colors to have a chance at decent lives.

2Reply

Christofer PiersonJun 29

Poor countries? What about poor people?

1Reply

tom mitchellJun 29

This is very insightful, Rem.

3Reply

zdebmanJun 30

The irony of that view is that globalization has, by far, improved the material well-being of more people of color in the last 30 years than any other system over any other time period going back to the beginning of recorded history. It is just that they are Chinese, Vietnamese, Nigerian, Brazilian, etc. instead of African-American.

1Reply

JayJun 30

Which groups are benefiting? The nine year olds in work-slave camps in China making your iPhone?

2Reply

Filius RomaJun 30

People still believe this propaganda about child slaves in China?

Reply

SkutchJun 30

People still believe there were WMD's in Iraq and that supply side trickle down economics is a viable economic policy. Why not ?

1Reply

Caek IsloveJul 1

Yeah! Some of them are political prisoners too!

Reply

RemJun 30

You seem to know a lot about propaganda and China.

Reply

SkutchJun 30

Not working out so well for the ME or South America and Africa these days though. It's a protection racket that loots and pillages one part of the world to lift up another. Let's not forget who has improved their material well being the most...the wealthy are stealing money from the our left pocket and putting it back into our right pocket after taking a cut for themselves.

Reply

sanchezJun 30

you got crickets on this salient point, skutch, because obsessing about race frees people from looking at class, and wealth distribution. that globalisation has slightly helped the extreme poor into the only sort of poor category, while jettisoning rich people into the multi millionaire and billionaire status, is too icky for folks to concentrate on, never mind work to change. too many people's daddies are bankers, too many people want wealth themselves. safer to scream about white people than actually fix poverty and discrimination. And filius, there really is not much a of a middle class left in America, so that problem is solved too.

1Reply

Joe EagarJun 29

I remember as a young child I started spouting this kind of crap to a black man. He told me I was full of it. There is something deeply condescending in the idea that small psychological biases in well-meaning people are powerful enough to destroy the lives of tens of millions of people.

22Reply

Adam GoldsteinJun 29

Bingo, the black men I work with and deeply respect shake their head at this crap and see it for what it is, another white liberal egghead profiting from the color of their skin... their words, not mine.

11Reply

angelOJun 30

I'll bet that's not what they say when you're not around. I'd wager they have a few stories they could tell about YOU. It's a specialized kind of survival tactic called "code switching." Look it up.

1Reply

QuietlikeJun 30

Yes, because you're a mind reader. Group identity is the predictor of what people think in your sick worldview. Every single human interaction revolves around power in the minds of the racialists. Individual thought and identity don't exist. We are all just mouthpieces for our collective groups. That's the bullshit that underpins your view of reality. It's sad.

People who believe in your non-sense are exactly the same as white nationalists. Switch out a few words, and it's a stormfront post. They love your ideology, because it mirrors theirs and validates their entire view, and helps them recruit. White nationalists believe in a wall that divides the races, and see it everywhere. You see the same wall everywhere as well. You are just on the other side of it. The fact that the wall is a fabricated social construct that only exists if you believe it is lost.

Tell a kid in a trailer park in eastern Kentucky that he's privileged, and see how that goes. The world you live in is one where the poorest white kid can go to Harvard with no issues, and the richest black kid can't get a job. It's deeply insulting and is a view held by losers to validate their own lack of success. You can either tell yourself you can do better and try to improve things you can control, or you can focus mental energy on things you can't control, and pretend that they are why you failed. We all know what the racialists do. I've never met an ethno-nationalist who wasn't a complete loser.

10Reply

UBJun 30

people like "angelO" *are* mind readers. Swallowing critical race theory wholesale is proven to sharpen the sensitive emotional antennae of the progressive.

1Reply

UBJun 30

here we see the progressive in his natural habitat, where he or she speaks for black people without the slightest trace of irony, let alone shame.

4Reply

Bill McNealJun 29

Absolutely. One need look no further than the policies enacted during the '60s that were purported to "right the scales" and correct the damage from slavery and Jim Crow. The government successfully destroyed the black family, and made it explicitly clear to blacks that they couldn't compete on a level playing field.

No one is guilty of anything due to the color of their skin, and until we stop making an issue of it, nothing will get any better.

6Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

How would you have corrected the damage done by slavery and Jim Crow? Has anything been done that works in your opinion?

3Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

The same goddamn way every aggrieved population corrects the damage done. Stop being a victim and move up and on. Truly, this country has thrown money and resources at the disadvantaged black population since the 1960's. Is it perfect? No. But at some point we need to wonder if there is more than purported racism and the legacy of slavery that perpetuates the "damage." CRT is NOT a positive and helpful way forward! (And don't accuse me of white fragility for saying that b/c you have no idea how much melanin I have in my skin. )

4Reply

angelOJun 29

The government destroyed the black family when it allowed slavery, enforced black codes, allowed blacks to be excluded from the trillions in wealth-building handouts that went to white people, invented&maintained a system of redlining, initially excluded most blacks from Social Security, added white women to anti-discrimination legislation and affirmative action programs meant to redress past wrongs done to native blacks, etc. Shall I go on?

1Reply

AldenJun 30

Even Morgan Freeman agrees with you on that one. Go to 1:11 on this clip and hear for yourself https://youtu.be/kOiQgleiRtU

Reply

CLJun 29

And condescending that once the small group has "purged" their guilt then the real problem will be solved, systemic issues be damned. Like making a walk of atonement and then going back to being an asshat.

Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

Hear ye! Hear ye!

Reply

Unladen ParrotJun 29

We need an updated version of the B.S. Bingo game for race-speak in 2020: "we can do better" should be on there alongside "wrong side of history". I guess "this is not okay" as well. I need to write down 21 others.

18Reply

CertexJun 29

"There is still much to do" is quite a good one, too. :)

7Reply

Unladen ParrotJun 29

"problematic"? I feel like that has been around for 5 or 10 years and may belong to an earlier era?

6Reply

Starry GordonJun 29

'Problematize'.

Reply

CertexJun 29

Yep, agree totally. Laughable drivel.

2Reply

RemJun 30

Michael Tracey had a great riff on this new form of HR speak:

"To everyone who has been hurt by my poasts over the past several weeks: I hear you. I see you. Right now, I'm just taking the time to listen. I want to give you the space to go f*ck yourself"

Reply

GanjamanJun 29

It's telling that you casually ignore Matt's most important point: the usefulness of Ms. DiAngelo's worldview to our corporate masters.

15Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

As someone who works for a major corporation it has been interesting to see the book recommended by employers. And as someone who read it “before it was famous” it’s been equally interesting to watch its sudden rise.

I’m certainly in the camp that struggles with essentialism, and while I think implicit bias is an irrefutable fact I think there needs to be much more study of how biases manifest in behavior. Despite those positions I found the book to be full of challenging ideas for me to reflect on and apply to my own experience. I was motivated to do so so YMMV.

Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 29

Ah so you work for a "major corporation".

No wonder you approve of the book.

10Reply

ConchJun 30

Wow, very erudite sounding. But do fix the danglers!!

("As someone who works for a major corporation it has been interesting to see the book recommended by employers. And as someone who read it “before it was famous” it’s been equally interesting to watch its sudden rise. "

1Reply

ScottJul 1

lol I bet the first wave of brownshirts also acted superior to other racists for having read Mein Kampf first.

Fucking racists. Racist everywhere.

2Reply

LexJul 1

Evan, although I disagree with you, I commend you for your civility. It is encouraging to read.

I might point out, regarding implicit bias, that, even if you have great trust in the accuracy of social psychology experiments, many of which have been discredited in recent years, the experimental data does not unequivocally support it.

Reply

Evan RentschlerJul 1

Thanks, Lex. I don’t usually do much online except read, but if I’m going to discuss something I try to operate in good faith.

I’ve followed implicit bias studies enough over the years that I think it very much exists and is even measurable. As I’ve noted a couple of times here, it seems less clear how it manifests as behavior, especially under stress. It seems to have become a more polarizing concept than I ever expected, so I’m always looking to see if there’s a motive behind a given study beyond honest curiosity.

Reply

AcephalusJun 29

You can read white responses to "White Fragility" antagonistically, but DiAngelo can be read antagonistically as well, namely by reading "white fragility" as one attempt among many by the professional-managerial class to position itself as universally understanding the needs of all races insofar as the needs of capital are concerned (hence, why so much of this is phrased in terms of "politeness," as a "basic level" of civil discourse in work and casual environments), and mandating new policies and ways of speaking which are supposed to resolve the problems of racism without transforming the capitalist system. Conveniently, this requires workers' induction into new discursive norms through education and training, which can further be used to discipline the workers this class oversees for capital. That is, racism isn't being "solved" by whites and won't be because, to the extent it remains a problem, it isn't an individual but systemic problem of capitalism, yet the banner of "anti-racism" is being used by this class to assert its moral and intellectual importance to capital through the attempted imposition of new norms which they would be needed to enforce, until technology is able to monitor and discipline workers similarly, with little or no intervention needed from such people. At that point, perhaps there will be yet another panic.

14Reply

DanielJun 29

So foolish: Racism isn’t a systemic problem of capitalism, it’s a systemic problem universal to all organisms that have evolved systems of perception that categorize threat levels into known and unknown (explored, familiar territory vs. unexplored and unfamiliar).

Unfortunately for creatures that have evolved the ability to abstract, the negative aspects of our pre-cortical motivational systems —(the seeking (explorative impulse), fight (anger), flight (Fear), shame (separation sensitivity), lust drive, and care—underpin all our actions and all our thinking.

Hebrew and Christian religion identified this concept as original sin. Paul called it the Ancient Man. These woke (born again) zealots have rediscovered it as “implicit bias.” And like Calvinists, they believe we are all damned unless chosen. Hence the need to virtue signal to display a chosen status.

10Reply

AcephalusJun 29

Every natural system is purposed within a social whole into a specific form which allows for certain expressions, rather than being directly transmitted from nature to immediate expression. Every choice is necessarily bounded by the set of choices which seem available to us, and what seems available isn't necessarily the same between a prehistorical man living in a cave, a 15th century Chinese peasant and a 20th century French aeronautics engineer. That is, nature expresses itself within the given material and social context rather than abstractly, from "nature" as such. I don't find this sort of crude biological reduction convincing in the least, for a few separate reasons in addition to the one above (e.g. what do we mean when we talk about "nature," or these conceptual derivations from human forms of organizing the world like biology?), but it should be obvious that human nature isn't a sufficient explanation for what specifically is happening here.

1Reply

DanielJun 29

Pontificate as you wish, but you must identify the problem before you can craft a strategy.

Your assertion that racism is a systemic problem of capitalism is beyond naive. The problem of racism and original sin is billions of years old in the making. Our nervous systems have been developed into what they are, built as they are on the architecture of our ancestors, and our conscious minds are not able to fully regulate it (which seems to be what our frontal cortex is for).

Biology therefore provides a context, as nature has a way of selecting that optimum strategy. Sure the environment of prehistoric man and today is different. But 10,000 years is a short time, and that is similar than dissimilar. The biology of the man is unchanged.

For example, BLM and leftist organizations like it maintain the bizarre goal of "disrupting 2-parent family structures." In BLM orthodoxy, homosapien pair-bonding is bizarrely reframed as the product of whiteness circa 500 BC and onward, and not the optimal strategy for coping with the negative aspects of neotony over a period of 5 million years.

These terrible strategies are pushed at a horrific cost. Yet, no matter how much verifiable data refutes the foolishness; the ideological madness is resilient, metastasizing and rebranding. There is always an ephemeral and elusive force to blame. Each religion has its own preferred bogey man. This one prefers the terms structural racism, implicit bias, etc.

2Reply

Adam GoldsteinJun 29

The "old Adam" as it were... and the only way to address is the way which no one will speak of.

Reply

JoeJun 29

Evan nailed it. Talking about race isn’t racist. Identify policies that create racial inequity and changing them is the work of anti-racists. It’s easy to see everything as a ploy to divide the masses but the reality is that America isn’t ready for a color blind approach until racial inequity is a thing of the past. And white people need to be a part of that solution. It’s not that white people are bad. It’s that they were born into a system with real inequities and pretending those inequities don’t exist only allow them to persist

5Reply

Alex LivingstonJun 29

Do you think THAT NOTHING AT ALL BESIDES RACE is responsible for the inequities that exist? Do you think that ANY CORRELATION AT ALL BETWEEN RACE AND INEQUITY MUST BE THE RESULT OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?

13Reply

angelOJun 29

Spoken like someone who doesn't know the economic history of black people in America; a country founded on 250 years of mass wage theft, followed by 158 years of well documented discrimination in education, home and business lending, and employment.

Those acts, along with GOVERNMENT acts like redlining, enforcing racist real estate covenants, and maintaining separate&unequal schools, exclusion of black from government wealth-building programs in the New Deal and GI Bill, and omissions like courts' refusal to protect black people from all of the above, and law enforcement's failure to protect us from white mob violence.

This history, apparently unknown to Taibbi, is hiding in plain sight from most people, including white people who think they got to where they are on merit, lol.

In other words, race is THE organizing principle in America. Thankfully whiteness, social construct*, and not a biologic one, can be eliminated by reversing the policies that created it in the first place. And, of course, making recompense to those who were meant to be harmed by those policies.

*"White" is not a phenotype. Rather it is a social caste that includes everyone, regardless of color, ethnicity, nationality, or even legal status, *except* people who are descended from American slaves.

3Reply

QuietlikeJun 30

You and your racialist ilk don't know math or science. You just read each other's anecdotal essays and regurgitate bullshit. My entire k-12 education was in predominantly black public schools. Nobody is arguing with the racism of the past, but the black men I grew up with who had dads in their house are all very successful. A few who had single moms are as well. Most not so much. Same for the white kids in the trailer park I grew up in.

Correlation != causation is a phrase that nobody in the racialist world knows about, and if they do, they willfully ignore it. It's hard to learn math, it's easy to just regurgitate shitty essays, so this will continue.

My cousin was murdered by a man who happened to be black in Virginia Beach several years ago. I guess I should walk around and find black people and demand they apologize to me for the sins of somebody they don't know because he shares their skin color. That's not any different than your logic. It's poisonous shit spewed by people who cannot and will not ever build anything.

10Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 29

It's hard to see what any of the above has to do with what Taibbi wrote.

4Reply

JoeJun 29

That’s because Matt didn’t do the premise of the book much justice

1Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 29

How does that follow?

1Reply

JoeJun 30

Matt’s criticism seems to stem from his concern about cancel culture and corporate power, etc. But the book is about understanding how race as a social construct has been used to maintain power over time and how we need to think about racism as a larger system that we are all stuck in (against our will). The against our will part is important because it shows that racism isn’t about good people vs bad people or white people vs. black people. It’s about a deeply rooted historical legacy and socialization of all races that will only be dealt with if white people admit their role in carrying on these inequities. Again, not willful oppressors. More like oblivious benefactors.

4Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 30

Well then we have a difference in perception because I see Matt's criticism as stemming from a concern that abstract, politically convenient rhetorical constructs not be substituted for fact.

Which explains why your comment made no sense to me.

4Reply

JoeJun 30

I think your description is more accurate to his overall criticism. I guess what stuck with me more was the perceived danger of this type of race based approach. Engaging in anti racism CAN create more division and intolerance if done in a way that points fingers at individuals instead of larger systems and historical socialization.

2Reply

Trudy CooperJun 30

Yes, that nails the difference. It's not that DiAngelo's sense of historic context is wrong. The problem for me is her theory of change. On page 144, she writes that the practice of confronting others in their racism using her tools will build relationships between races which will automatically lead to changing institutions. She spends approximately zero time on "institutions," other than to include the word itself, and does not define the bridge between her tools and the wider structures that recreate inequity systematically. To state it in perhaps trivial terms, I'd rather that my great aunt who harbors dismissive attitudes about black and brown folks would support Medicare of All, free tuition, and so on, than that she attend a workshop on how to confront her personal biases. Can we do both? Of course.

1Reply

JoeJun 30

I agree. The book does not delve into the substance of systemic racism or how we approach anti-racism in a way that brings us together.

1Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 30

That's certainly a danger. However, there's also a danger of negating individual agency.

At the end of the day, we each are responsible for the choices we make and the actions we take, regardless of the social structures we inhabit.

1Reply

angelOJun 30

INTENTIONALLY oblivious, I would argue. Because if you accept the notion that white supremacy undergirds every institution in a society where you're "successful", you start to question your own worth. And some people can't stand that kind of scrutiny. I suspect that's why "impostor syndrome" is so pervasive. White supremacy is incompatible with true meritocracy.

2Reply

JayJun 30

I just love people writing that racism is a thing of the past a day after an American President approvingly tweeted a video clip of a supporter in a rich gated community shouting "White Power!"

2Reply

deletedJun 29

deleted

W.B. ReevesJun 30

My bad. I mistook who you were replying to. Apologies.

Reply

AldenJun 30

"This history, apparently unknown to Taibbi, is hiding in plain sight from most people, including white people who think they got to where they are on merit, lol."

You mean I owe everything I have to black people?

"I love black people"

--Tom Cruise, Jerry Maguire

1Reply

angelOJun 30

You probably owe some of what you have to black people, but you definitely owe most of what you have the to subjugation of black people.

See the difference?

Reply

AldenJun 30

I understand the difference however I put myself through college, had a job since I was 12, and worked very hard to have zero debt. How does the subjugation of black people fit into that?

Reply

angelOJun 30

You're not seriously trying to claim that your experience has empirical value, are you?

Reply

AldenJun 30

My experience has tremendous value. You haven't walked in my shoes so how can you discount my experience? All black people don't share all the same experiences. In the main, what I'm seeing now are black folks/white folks around the ages of 18-35 running around like idiots claiming victim status. Wonder how many of them come from dual parent households?

There is not a country on earth that has done more for the plight of colored people than the US of A. By the way, never in my life have I experienced more racist behavior than with the black community towards me. My mom dated a Nation of Islam follower. His family treated me and my siblings like shit.

2Reply

C WardJun 30

it doesn't ... angel doesn't have the cognitive skills to see any of this.

1Reply

C WardJun 30

BLACK AFRICANS sold each other to eager ships passing by... then after a nano second in evolutionary history .. white america said... NO

Black and brown people STILL buy and sell each other where ever they aren't governed by whites.

2Reply

Davidson A BarlettJun 30

You really need to work on that inferiority/persecution complex of yours. Just Sayin'

2Reply

angelOJun 30

You've got whitesplaining and ad hominem attacks down pat, but you really need to work on your knowledge of American history.

Reply

Davidson A BarlettJun 30

You mean your version of American History, right? The afro-centric one that states the country was built on the backs of blacks slaves? If you hate America so much, why not move to Cuba?

1Reply

AldenJun 30

Too many freebies here

2Reply

angelOJun 30

Only for white people. For native black people, nothing is free. But don't take my word for it. Read "When Affirmative Action Was White" and/or "Color of Law" if you dare. And if your ego can stand it.

Reply

C WardJun 30

you can either read real history - or perish with other feral blacks. This is all coming to a head. THERE ARE NO BLACK SUCCESS STORIES - at any time.. .and anywhere on this planet.

Reply

JoeJun 29

Think beyond economic inequality. Think about basic equity in society overall. Economic inequality is only one aspect of the larger system of institutions that reinforce our assumptions about race. You can’t expose a policy for creating racial inequity if race isn’t a part of the language.

1Reply

JoeJun 29

Of course there’s more than just race that causes inequity but that doesn’t mean that racism isn’t a problem. It actually just compounds other societal problems

1Reply

angelOJun 29

Race is what keeps poor white* people from eating the rich ones. We couldn't have capitalism without it.

*White is not a phenotype. Rather it is a social caste that includes everyone, regardless of color, ethnicity, nationality, or even legal status, *except* people who are descended from American slaves.

Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 29

Sorry but if you think "white" applies to everyone "*except* people who are descended from American slaves." you are very much mistaken.

1Reply

angelOJun 29

Feel free to post an argument and I'll counter it.

Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 29

It needs no argument as it is matter of fact.

First Nation peoples, Asians, et al, are not the descendants of American slaves. Neither are they classed as "white".

1Reply

angelOJun 30

I'm talking about in America.

Those Native Americans who do not live in the respective *sovereign* nations of their tribes are often phenotypical and socially "white".

Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 30

Oh and are you really unaware of the existence of Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.?

1Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 30

Data please. Your opinion alone doesn't qualify as fact.

1Reply

Starry GordonJun 29

Race and other invidious ideologies seem to me like an outgrowth of the more basic inequalities of power and wealth that constitute capitalism (or feudalism, depending on where you live and what you do). Under egalitarian conditions, race, racism, sexism, and so forth would be pointless because they wouldn't buy anyone anything.

1Reply

JoeJun 29

Yes, race was a direct product of the desire to hold power. It is a social construct that was used to justify slavery. Today, the question becomes, how do we approach this social construct today? To abandon race-consciousness prior to racial equity being achieved is to accept the status quo of inequity. DiAngelo is asking white people to think about this question and their role in the answer. The cancel culture crap is hijacking the less controversial assertion that we have yet to achieve racial equity and its on us to make it happen.

1Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 30

Sounds more like dictating how they should think about it.

I think that's the crux of Taibbi's criticism.

1Reply

JoeJun 30

Fair enough. After reading the book I did not get the impression that I was being told what to think, it was more about getting me to think about racism in Main impact of the book has been to seek out and learn more from all perspectives. But I completely agree that these types of books end up drowning out discourse when they are taken as scripture

Reply

BoJun 29

Can you even hear yourself? Economic Inequality is worse now than in the Gilded Age and it’s not because “all white people are born racist”.

10Reply

JoeJun 29

I suggest reading the book and judging for yourself. Matt is definitely making good points about the political culture surrounding the issue right now but he doesn’t do the main premise much justice. Matt and most comments here are falling into the exact pattern the book describes. Getting defensive because you think about race as some individual indictment of your character when in reality it’s a legacy of our past that won’t really change unless we change

3Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

I think that’s the key realization whites need to come to, Joe. It’s hard to get past the deeply ingrained idea that racism makes you a bad person, so being called racist is vehemently rejected.

Again, DiAngelo’s stated audience are leftists who think they’re enlightened on race. Of course they recoil when confronted by the concept. Their identity is far grounded in social justice concerns than most.

I’ve had more luck speaking to whites in terms of implicit bias rather than racist, but I’m sure that would be met with hostility by the doctrinaire anti-racist. And of course that often leads to a discussion of what we know about bias and how it translates into behavior, but it’s been a jumping off point whereas calling most whites racist just shuts them down.

4Reply

QuazarJun 29

In your analysis of implicit bias, do you ever dare to ask yourself whether those biases or stereotypes are a basic form of "pattern recognition" that it is actually based on real observation?

i.e Security guards focus on black shoppers more because they, over years of exposure to the reality of the job, notice far more blacks shoplifting

i.e White people more likely to cross the road when coming across a black man because of the actual reality of disproportionate black criminality and their rational fear response to it

Do you ever dare to ask yourself to what extent bias is actually justified? For example, say a white guy with a bowl cut haircut, carrying a large duffel bag and wearing camoflage gear, goes into a historical black church. Because of his resemblance to Dylan Roof, and that he's carrying a duffel bag, the black churchgoers begin to fear him. Now in actuality he's just a Christian guy that's been to the gym and his going in to pray on his way home.

But aren't the black churchgoers jsutified in their "bias"?

3Reply

angelOJun 29

Now we're getting somewhere!

You're right: black people are treated badly only because they're dangerous, morally inferior, and in all other ways deficient. The problem is that people are too kind and sensitive to actually tell them so.

So you just kind of have to listen to them bellyaching about all of the (false) reasons they're so far behind everyone else. Which, in turn makes life difficult and exhausting for white people.

AmIRite?

Reply

QuazarJun 30

What a laughably reductionist, and dishonest interpretation of what I said.

I'm asking the question, what is the progressive explanation for the genesis of "bias"? It is just purely irrational, based on "fear"? White people are just so evil that they have all these negative stereotypes of black people for no reason?

Do you genuinely believe that there is no connection whatsoever between the statistical reality of the fact that blacks are responsible for 52% of all total homicides, and white people being scared of them?

They're just completely unrelated facts? White people have no justification for even a fraction of their "bias"?

4Reply

JimJun 30

No

Reply

JoeJun 30

I think these are important questions. These are the types of discussions DiAngelo is trying to encourage. I am not an expert but my initial reaction to what you’re asking is that many of the examples you give (black shopper, black criminality, Dylan Roof) are all products of racial socialization to begin with. For example, the war on drugs disproportionately targeted minority communities which in turn skewed crime statistics to make it look like black people were inherently more violent. So there is a real danger in justifying our biases based on stereotypes.

Reply

JimJun 30

You can search long and hard for the reasons people do anything but that's all beside the point which is that blacks commit far more violent crimes than do whites in America and, when you factor in disparate population sizes, the relative violent crime rate goes through the roof.

Before Covid struck, a new trend of "random" black attacks on Jews in New York was emerging. The knockout game with a kosher twist to it.

At a certain point, even the most liberal, unbiased Jew there is bound to be more apprehensive walking past a few young black males than white, right? In that case the "real danger" isn't justifying their bias based on stereotypes but rather having their head punched in.

Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 30

Sure, I ask myself similar questions all the time. I also ask myself how 50-ish years of media consumption, educational standards of my time and the statements and actions of friends and family have fostered or reinforced biases.

Not every bias is bad, obviously (I hope that’s obvious). OTOH, I think we tend to valorize instinct and snap judgment over slower, more methodical information gathering too much of the time.

Though I’m not really wired to, I try to find new experiences as much as I can and even to force myself into uncomfortable situations to challenge my biases. It’s important to note that I do that by choice and that it’s not routinely thrust upon me as is so often the case for POC.

Reply

angelOJun 29

Another book to read: When Affirmative Action Was White. It will disabuse you of any notions you harbor of white people being deserving of their relative success; and of American meritocracy in general.

2Reply

AldenJun 30

Since you're recommending books for everyone else to read, I've got one for you that'll blow your mind: "Culture of Complaint" by Robert Hughes. I think it was written with you in mind.

Just from your few posts I can see your the kind of person, who, if they were in France, would actually request Ranch dressing for their salad.

1Reply

UBJun 30

They're the kind of person who, in the Soviet Union, would make an excellent commissar, or in the 16th century, would make an excellent bishop, or in the modern world, an excellent HR employee. Any job which involves being a moral busybody is generally suitable, I think.

Reply

C WardJun 30

black and brown people have an average IQ of less than 90. That's the threshold for participation in an advanced economy - or maintain a democratic republic. THAT is why UGANDA is the state of black Africans.

We need a frank discussion on black females copulating at 12, and the development of their frontal cortex.

Reply

JoeJun 30

Wouldn’t race need to be biological for your IQ claim to be true? Race is a social construct so this is nonsense.

Reply

Starry GordonJun 29

A lot of people here and elsewhere are not doing that.

Reply

Disraeli SearsJun 29

In the ever expanding list of things that can no longer be said, I don't see White Fragility, but an emerging Black Fragility. One does not overcome the state of their birth by discovering novel things to be upset about. I totally understand how many of these things are offensive and insulting, I don't see how recognizing and highlighting them leads to success for a group of people that needs success in this society more than anyone else.

14Reply

QuazarJun 30

Black Fragility is

- assuming that anything that happens to you is specifically because you are black, or because of "bias"

- responding with immediate denial and fragility when someone confronts you about the black crime rate

-demand white people be more conscious of their "bias" while being utterly dishonest about why they might have those "biases" in the first place

-being responsible for 52% of all homicides yet refusing to talk honestly about it

-insecurely redefining "racism" to mean "systems of oppression" so you can be personally racist to white people and then claim "it's not actually racism, I don't have systemic power"

-responding with threats of violence whenever challenged, unable to take any criticism without responding violently

-having to pretend that psychopathic career criminals, in many cases caught on camera committing heinous crimes or attacking people, were innocent good boys shot by the cops for no reason

6Reply

RemJun 30

I know what you think you're doing, but you're not doing it.

Reply

QuazarJun 30

Increasingly rhetoric like what I wrote above will become more and more common. So will the idea of "black privilege"

Black privilege:

- being able to violently loot, riot, commit violent attacks against innocent people, yet be fawned over by a complicit media apparatus, so terrified of being called racist, that they'll go out of their way to enable your violence

- be able to be the highest per capita perpetrators of interracial violent crime but never get challenged on this by media or society

-the ability to violently attack people, falsely accuse that person of calling you an n word, and then get away with it

- the ability to threaten white people, go out of your way to intimidate them, then claim to be victims when they fight back or arm themselves

- the ability to violently attack police and then claim to be a victim of police brutality when they arrest you

- the ability to commit minor crimes like fly tipping and then call any white person who challenges you a "Karen", post them online, and ruin their life

4Reply

J FisherJun 30

Wow, Quazar. Though I don't use the term racist, you're certainly prejudiced.

2Reply

Davidson A BarlettJun 30

Respect.

Reply

StephJun 29

C-/D response. How about this irony: your over reliance on Roget’s Thesaurus renders your response unreadable. You’re still using SAT vocabulary in 2020?! Have you no decency? Nice try with the verbal sophistry, but as that great American moralist of the 90s stated, “that dog won’t hunt.”

14Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

It’s the way I talk. Sorry?

Reply

Milan van EijkJun 29

Ewan Rentschler seems to be doing some strategical online opposition.

Wouldn't suprise me if it is a paid "troll" group of some sorts. Saw the same thing in the comment section on Taibbi his Planet Of The Humans article.

13Reply

alxspnJun 29

"the target audience of “well-meaning” leftists, specifically progressives, who choose to act as if racism is something other people do."

Fuck off, talk about yourself. If you're racist, deal with it. Don't assume others are

12Reply

CertexJun 29

The minute I read the pompous phrase 'We can/must do better," especially in a post talking about 'whites'..I tune out.

8Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

This is a topic of the utmost seriousness to me. While I enjoy Matt’s snarkiness when applied to political theater or partisan media, this piece does little to advance the conversation and he comes off as incoherent and out of his depth. A thoughtful disagreement with DiAngelo would be incredibly helpful, but this made no effort to be that. So yes, I think we can do better when discussing racism than Matt does here. Much better.

Reply

MikeJun 29

You exemplify the problem Taibbi is discussing well.

11Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

How?

Reply

JimJun 30

Is there racism in Africa? Where? How? Are black South Africans capable of being racist against whites there?

Reply

CertexJun 30

Are you honestly serious with that comment? You clearly know NOTHING AT ALL about modern South Africa. Jesus! Do ten seconds of cursory research and find stuff like this. NEVER discussed in the media. Guess killing blankes is alright with them.

them.https://concit.org/media-silence-on-the-deaths-and-torture-of-white-african-farmers/

Naive people who know nothing at all about a subject should not express an uninformed opinion on it. As for 'Is there racism in Africa?' Jesus. I am not even going to address how ludicrous the 'only white people are racist' filthy racist view is.

https://www.newsweek.com/white-farmer-killed-every-five-days-south-africa-authorities-do-nothing-851470

5Reply

GSoJul 1

Heard about Rwanda?

Reply

JPJul 1

This is silly argument. The honest thing to do is reject identity politics completely. You're mind seems to be tied up in a knot of pseudo-intellectualism.

1Reply

Evan RentschlerJul 1

It’s not about accepting or rejecting anything. I’m pointing to the fact of identity politics and saying that it requires engagement in order to plot a path forward.

I disagree with plenty of ideologies (or aspects of them) across the spectrum. Rejecting a belief in lieu of working to understand why it’s held and engaging adherents accomplishes nothing. So quite the opposite of intellectualizing things, I’m trying to be pragmatic.

In this case the elephant in the room (for me) is the role of white identity in this discussion. Resistance to identity politics sometimes stems from an urge to avoid confronting white identity, including denials of its existence. We see much more explicit embrace of white ID politics these day. Part of that can be read as a reaction to leftist ID politics and/or a critical mass of grievance in some white

Americans, but I think most of it is just something that’s always been foundational and pervasive coming into the light.

Reply

jonathan bellJun 30

your welcome (though no doubt grudging) acknowledgement of the absurdities of identitarian reductivism aside, you, like so many similar self-appointed arbiters of the "correct" manner in which one must think race and racism, resort to specious un-answerable accusations that place the burden of proof, not on the one proposing the under-theorized and overtly weaponized meme/neologism/pseudo concept du jour, but on the naughty renegade who has dared to dissent from orthodoxy. It's getting to be a "thing" that independent thinkers who deviate from the playbook must publicly prove a negative and/or simply capitulate to Logic 101 circular reasoning with pitiful mea culpas.

Quite simply: for people like Evan, any type of vigorous critique of the weak theoretical formulations in White Fragility is an example of white fragility...which elegantly demonstrates Matt's point as well as anything Matt could have said.

1Reply

Evan RentschlerJul 1

“People like Evan...” I’m a type! Finally.

I don’t know if all of that is a reply to me or not, but I can assure you there’s nothing grudging about my acknowledgment of the double-bind, or as you say the need to prove a negative, that is presented by the book. It was probably my greatest point of resistance for years (DiAngelo didn’t invent this after all) and I can understand why it is for others.

That and the essentialist stance are the aspects of the book I’m

still pondering. There’s is much of a practical nature that I’ve found helpful in the book despite that. Take what you can use and leave the rest.

I have to wonder where all the people mocking my writing style and my SAT words are. You’re as bad as me! People like Jonathon, I tell ya.

1Reply

ScottJul 1

Hmm, have you sat down and actually read Mein Kampf?

Reportedly it draws a lot of conclusions based on racist views and ideologies... so I haven't read it, but I'll bet that the guy who wrote it while sitting in prison thought it was real and valid.

I don't, but he did.

To see Ivy leaguers prop up the same racial tropes is MORE than disheartening.

Oh, right... they have a just cause: to remove Orange Prez from the oval office. That justifies deepening racial hatred and segregation, right?

WRONG.

1Reply

markJun 30

I'd like to understand your point. Could you do it in English please?

1Reply

Wally GreenwellJul 1

This intellectual equivalent of the “ordeal by water” (if you float, you’re a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia.

Reply

Evan RentschlerJul 1

I don’t think it’s limited to the academy, Wally. All true believers proceed from the position that their beliefs are based in objective Truth. I’m constantly being told that I’m an opposition team member by partisans across the ideological spectrum, and Christians have plenty of opinions about my relation to God and my eternal condition.

In this case I happen to accept the evidence of systemic racism in the U.S. across several centuries as well as the premise that I have benefited from it. I understand that people can believe those things and still balk at being called a racist. I did.

Reply

laura I guessJun 30

Well said!

Reply

Susan AndersonJun 29

🙄

Reply

karkarlkarlJun 29

That's a lot of words to say we live in a society

Reply

Jack Waites5 hr

This comment section is exactly the type of crap that DiAngelo is talking about. You guys just deny that there’s systemic racism and that it’s perpetuated actively and tacitly. No institutional racism isn’t that big a deal you just need more Black fathers in the home and drugs of the streets. Some have suggested that gangs/drug dealers rule Black neighborhoods. Look I grew up in Compton during the crazy 80’s and while those two entities were a problem they didn’t control the neighborhood. I think too many of you have watched too much of The Wire and assumed that is how most inner cities work. People want to throw ‘black on black’ crime out there as if it’s some unique phenomena to Black people but let me tell you a little secret: regardless of the race, most people are killed by people of the same race; white on white, Asian on Asian etc. If you just ignore the history surrounding everything pertaining to education, housing, jobs and just every day living then ok I guess it’s just an issue of personal responsibility. When things don’t apply to you and have no bearing on how you live your daily life, then it’s nothing but a thought experiment because you don’t know what it’s like to walk a day in a black man’s shoes in America.

Reply

Jim1 hr

Man, I've read through a shit ton of comments above to get to this one and read "you guys just deny that there's systemic racism." Yeah, bro, no one said that.

1Reply

Mascot1 hr

The illicit drugs trade doesn't need to control a neighborhood- or a rural area- for it to be responsible for the majority of the violent crime there. And in some blocks, or parts of neighborhoods, or sometimes small towns, the gangsters definitely do call the shots. The gangs definitely do recruit as many teenage males as they're able to. And the educational experience does get disrupted, sometimes at the elementary school level. And this is the case for many predominantly "white" parts of the country, not just the mostly nonwhite urban neighborhoods. There are hundreds of thousands of members of criminal gangs nationwide- the current US prison population of 1.3 million contains 200,000 of them, right now. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/using-restrictive-housing-manage-gangs-us-prisons

That was unheard of before the 1980s. Gangs were found in only a few major cities, and they were not reaping billions annually from controlling tens of billions of dollars in illegal revenue. The illegal drug industry "employs" as many people in the retail end as the fast food industry. Many of them are teenagers. And that's been the case ever since drug retail outlets- mostly for pot- spread across the country nationwide through the high schools in the early 1970s. Then the cocaine and heroin markets piggybacked on that, later on. City or country. And by that time, there were enough people who had done time in conjunction with participating in the trade to provide commitment to careers in the drug trade. White, black, brown...the differences in the ethnic composition of the hardcore participants are mostly a matter of geography and local population density.

I don't view the Drug War as a problem that only affects black people- far from it- and I think that an insistence on making it primarily about race is misplaced. But the impacts of the Drug War aren't just measured in terms of the way its unfairly applied to ethnic minority populations in terms of law enforcement. They're also measured in the impacts of the antisocial values of the criminal underworld who benefits it. And I don't think those effects are to be downplayed. They undercut every Police Athletic Club, Boys & Girls Club, every church community, every effort at job training in gang-afflicted neighborhoods, every move to try to attract legitimate businesses into enterprise zones. The gangsters simply have bigger budgets. Their popular appeal in some localities can be seen at every big funeral for a deceased gang leader.

Then there are the corrosive effects on law enforcement integrity https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2020/may/18/weeks_corrupt_cops_stories

Reply

Mascot1 hr

Link to the complete archive of entries (beginning 2006) https://stopthedrugwar.org/taxonomy/term/27?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=f8dd3e9fe3f1c06151066d44b49e40d7dee112c7-1593722239-0-AcKK-Wny9NNucGRpnIuh-ob3ppb_UWUPdm8k3m43sHbbNiOCGJsmE3bzl9WSP4EMCBNTZkJaM3cjeHZQ5Z2HUtOcOss6Qg3MmkILPWca5iJoourhKNtwXbSjpQ-ct2fTiVe3W5rTJdH94V0d_EmFdIKSN2bI2X2ewUeHzqqhpuoVkfRDjsVcU_i9I8B9hwRVNBVv18ilFe6QBmi93XW-8qI8I0S1ujj5I88p6I-jG7aQwiLB6Hvb8bT0OUcEP3GzGY6wtx7FJKRNbTuZfAnUS4UbB7SA_Id0XS-s94C4VfQn

Reply

Serge3 hr

This is a strawan. You can recognize injustice and structural racism while acknowledging DiAngelo is a privileged narcissist.

2Reply

Certex1 hr

Some people white people do act 'testy' (read: 'fragile') when race is discussed, it's true, but for very good reason: any accusation these days of being a racist, unfounded or not (and there is a constant small stream of race hate hoaxes a la Jussie Smollett), can destroy lives.

Reply

F. Hud2 hr

Who first coined the term "white fragility"? DiAngelo's book was first published in 2018, but I can find blogs written immediately following the election of Trump. Just because it is a real thing, doesn't mean DiAngelo's approach is the right one. Race is more a social construct than a biological phenomenon. Being colour-blind may when indeed help keep systemic racism alive, but it is still very different from being an “racist”.

I live in Canada where the country had officially adopted multiculturalism as a philosophy in the 70s or 80s. Yet even here people are complaining about extreme identity politics. Jordan Peterson, for example, is from Ontario. I think a lot of the issues stem from the disregard or ignorance of the role of culture in human psychology. Colour-blindness is not the only option, other than multiculturalism. Polyculturalism seems to incorporate some of the intersectional aspects of social theory, without a lot of the divisive aspects of multiculturalism. Why is there not more being written about it?

Reply

Mel2 hr

I don’t think Matt in particular, has “denied that there’s systemic racism.” No, indeed, he has not denied such at all.

Reply

JayJun 29

This rant is such hot garbage. "White Fragility" is not an academic book, it is not peer reviewed and it has nothing to do with academic scholarship on whiteness, critical race theory, or ethnicity studies. Complaining about a popular crossover book is fine, but you might as well say "Eat Pray Love" reveals what a fraud the field of Gastroenterology is. Pathetic. Try actually reading real academic books on a subject so you don't sound like such a buffoon next time, Matt.

10Reply

Rey AllenJun 29

Critical race theory is pretty closely aligned with what White Fragility espouses. You're simply wrong.

17Reply

JayJun 29

Well as I hold a doctorate in a related field and have read at least a dozen books on CRT, I can safely tell you you're completely wrong m CRT makes no claims about the emotional or psychological state of individuals as it began as an analysis of systemic bias in the legal profession. CRT argues that seemingly "neutral" forms of language actually contain systemic bias in them, a theory supported throughout the fields of linguistics and semiotics over the past hundred years. But far easier to rant about how butthurt you are then to actually crack a real textbook, right, Karen?

3Reply

Gaspatcho Crem'e D'MenthJun 29

There it is folks. You have one of these faux professors with a doctorate in lesbian dance theory. I wonder- since you most obvi are down with the struggle if you realize using the term "karen" is a racist attack. Here it is in the middle of a work day being paid by the taxpayer commenting instead of working.

3Reply

JayJun 30

Wow! I'm hoisted on my own petard. You right wing victims sure have mastered Socratic debate.

1Reply

EmJun 29

Legit question: what would you recommend reading to, let’s say, someone with higher education interested in the true tenets of CRT (that is also linguistically accessible? My barometer is that critical gender theorist/philosopher Judith butler is too complex for me). and then what do you think are a few books that might be more difficult to read but revered among CRT scholars?

I want to form my opinions based on the best representation of the field for sure. And would you also consider writing a rebuttal to White Fragility as misrepresenting the study?

Reply

laura I guessJun 30

Read How to be an anti racist or stamped from the beginning by Ibram X Kendi. He’s a better writer and he’s a scholar.

Reply

JayJun 30

All academic fields are written for peers. Complaining that CRT is inaccessible is like complaining that Physics is inaccessible. Scholarship at the Ph.D. level is written for other scholars. To access it, you have to study. Although many academics have addressed this, and some endeavor to write "crossover" books for those unfamiliar with the terms and untrained in the basic academic frameworks that the scholars are using to develop their theories and analysis. It took me years to understand Judith Butler. It takes time.

3Reply

JayJun 30

In terms of "White Fragility" there is nothing to rebut. It's one person's experience and opinions and should be treated as a point of discussion and debate. But it is not an academic study or framework and I highly doubt any CRT course is including it in the curriculum as anything other than an optional reading for discussion puroposes.

1Reply

ConchJun 30

well, you can start here and follow the links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

Reply

CertexJun 30

Christ, what utter drivel. "I know more about a made-up racist system of polysyllabic drivel than you do, nyah nyah!" People like you are the divisive, sneering reason America is going down the toilet.

And as for using rape-inflected words like "butthurt," and racist terms like "Karen," wellllll...is that what they teach you in CRT class, kidda? If so, I would suggest you move into a different pseudoscientific field, cos this one is rotting your brain and vocab and keeping you at an emotionally retarded adolescent level.

9Reply

JayJun 30

LOL, I love it when right wing clowns refer to the humanities and the social sciences as "pseudo-scientific" because they don't follow the empirical method. What happens when you morons discover Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle? Then again there's no chance of that happening. You people don't actually read.

1Reply

LeculdesacJun 29

"Systemic bias in 'neutral' forms of language?" Like invoking a sexist stereotype to simultaneously denigrate white middle-aged women and imply that those with whom you disagree are somehow invalid by association? Plenty of us have PhDs. Since you keep reminding us of it--and claim you've read "books" instead of monographs or peer-reviewed journal articles--I take it you're not a practicing scholar. I'm guessing Ed.D. in Human Resource Development. Doctorate indeed.

3Reply

JayJun 30

I wasn't aware my posts here needed to be peer reviewed. But I'll grant your point. My posts here are as relevant to academic publications as White Fragility is. You're the loon using a popular first person polemic to try to smear an academic discipline.

Reply

CertexJun 29

Even the phrase 'white fragility' is bloody racist.

13Reply

JayJun 29

What happens when you learn "white" isn't a race?

2Reply

Starry GordonJun 29

Races are made, not born. If someone wants there to be a White race, they can just make one up.

5Reply

TMCJun 30

So i'm white but I geuss according to you i belong to no race. Cool. Does that make me non-binary racially so i can now self identify with any race i feel inclined to identify with at any given moment in time, so that must mean i cannot every be accused of being racist or of cultural appropriation since all races are my races as my needs determine. Absolutely awsome.

1Reply

CertexJun 30

I dunno, guess I'll be devastated. (Looks down at pinkish body) Doing alright so far. Thanks for asking.

1Reply

deftJun 29

Neither is 1619, but that delusional horse shit is being incorporated into school curriculum. It's all about mind share, not facts.

44Reply

MascotJun 29

I have a hunch that the "delusional horse shit" content of the book 1619 is a lot lower than the book White Fragility. Since it's a history book, and not some faux-mo foolishness.

It being the case that I'm still learning new information about the more sordid chapters of the history of my country more than 50 years after I first began looking into the subject.

2Reply

CindyJun 29

It’s not actual history. Many historians, including a group of black historians, have come out against the false premise of the 1619 Project.

4Reply

jhnwlkJun 29

The white-supremacist claque rightwing quickly exploited this academic nit-picking hoping to discredit the entire idea that the US is a racist nation by birth. The United States may not have been expressly founded on slavery but the retention of slavery played a part at every step of the creation.

2Reply

CindyJun 30

Please. If you can’t see it for the propaganda it is then I don’t know what to tell you. Just recall that the author actually thought that Africans taught the Aztecs how to build pyramids while she was in college. I question her scholarship.

3Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

The writing of that paragraph causes me to question your understanding of English usage as that second sentence ends by suggesting that the Aztec pyramids were constructed while Ms Hannah-Jones was in college. But that would be grammatical nit-picking wouldn't it? It's just that kind of historical nit-picking that people like you are doing to a document that does not purport to be a formal historical document to begin with.

1Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

And, by the way, Cindy, your comments are proof of the existence of White fragility.

1Reply

RemJun 30

You're a sociopath who wants to hurt people. No one here believes you're being sincere.

1Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

Talk about fragility! You're soaking in it.

Reply

angelOJun 30

Taibbi's original post and many of the comments here are hilariously illustrative of the book's thesis. But whatever you do, please don't tell them that they're proving her point. Best to let this discussion stand as a testament to DiAngelo's spot-on observations.

Reply

CindyJun 30

Criticizing my grammar? I guess that means you are taking the best defense is a good offense route?

How about this. The author said that Africans shared technology with Aztecs long before White Europeans colonized the Americas.

Reply

AlJun 30

And in many other nations as well. What is your white-fear leftist bed-wetting need to be subservient based on only the history of one race? You can keep your white-inferiority submissive coward culture.

Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

There's no cure for your level of projection, trumper.

Reply

AlJun 30

Trump says you're a pussy bitch.

Reply

MascotJun 29

It's possible to dispute points of focus and narrative without dismissing a history project as "delusional horse shit." Disputing accounts for much of what historians do at their conventions. The discipline is about debate and dialogue.

The 1619 Project is likely to be an imperfect effort with points worth challenging. But if you really want to have a look at a concerted effort of Political Correctness to falsify history, review how much of it was buried in this country prior to the1960s. That obliteration of history succeeded for decades.

2Reply

KurtJun 29

1. So, even taking you in your own terms, you’re saying: DeAngelo’s book doesn’t accurately reflect academic literature

1a. Matt’s essay agrees that it’sa terrible book.

2. You suggest that Matt (and, presumably, anyone who wants to learn correctly about whiteness/CRT/ES should read other books.

2a. The essay laments that such a terrible book is being touted as the go-to for people to learn about whiteness/CRT/ES.

... I’m lost. What’s your problem with the essay again?

39Reply

CertexJun 29

Sorry, I don't even know what ES/CRT mean. I can't even keep up with all the acronyms minted on a daily basis, and often, to be honest, don't care too. What do these acronyms mean? Seriously. I look some of them up and assume that, say, 'CRT,' can have any number of permutations or meanings, and can't grasp what the correct-in-context one is.

https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/CRT

2Reply

MascotJun 29

CRT = "critical race theory"

ES = "ethnic studies"

White Fragility may be a fatuous pop-culture take on a serious issue, but it seems as though a lot of people are praising it as wise and insightful, judging from the critical buzz and its place on the book sales charts.

It's that Bien-Pensant cachet, is my take.

I think any budding autodidact with a sincere interest in these matters would be better off reading, say, Ishmael Reed's Writin' Is Fightin'- a book that was published around 30 years ago.

(So much of book sales success is timing. And mass media priming, for better or worse.)

5Reply

JayJun 29

I'd argue anything by bell hooks or Frantz Fanon would be preferable

5Reply

JayJun 29

Matt argues it's an exemplar of an entire academic discipline.

Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

What? You do understand that this book is required reading in corporate diversity training taking place across the country. It espouses a theory that is taking over our country, it, along with CRT, is causing the ruin of countless innocent people....but Matt should avoid even discussing the book, and I might add, pointing out that it is total nonsense because ????

37Reply

JayJun 29

Why is my point so hard for you for breathing persecution and victim complex whiny bitches so hard to understand? The book does not represent CRT or any academic field. Trying to use it to smear a field of scholarship you buffoons clearly know nothing about is embarrassing

Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 29

That you resort to insult and name calling pretty much liquidates any credibility you may have had.

8Reply

JayJun 30

LOL, crying white men in a Matt Taibbi thread is the height of credibility

Reply

PekkaJun 30

LOL, as if you aren't 100% angry caucasian male yourself. 😄

2Reply

PekkaJun 29

That's still a beef you need to take up with DiAngelo herself, not Matt nor the people commenting here. She is presenting herself as an academic researcher in "Whiteness Studies and Critical Discourse Analysis" and for better or worse is going to be treated as one of the most important public faces of the field for a long time. https://robindiangelo.com/about-me/

If you feel Matt's opening line "The concept... reduces everything, even the smallest and most innocent human interactions, to racial power contests." is not a valid opinion to hold about "real" CRT, then that would be an interesting point to make. If you have any reading on that I'd be genuinely interested.

6Reply

Gaspatcho Crem'e D'MenthJun 29

You are a whiny ass soy boy and someone took a piss on your crt or mfg or whatever bullshit you have made up for the day and basically everyone on here knows what you are. An apologist.

Reply

JayJun 30

No, I've just read the books you people want to burn.

Reply

CLJun 29

Being required reading in corporate diversity training, is not the same as being "academic" There is a difference.

3Reply

PekkaJun 29

He‘s critiquing the #1 bestseller on Amazon and the one book on „whiteness“ that everyone is reading. It‘s not Matt‘s fault if DiAngelo‘s work falls short of academic standards.

36Reply

JayJun 30

No but it's Matt's fault for equating a first person polemic with an academic field.

1Reply

KWSterlingJun 29

The book is the new Liberal Darling, and embraced by academia as such. It's on the upcoming semester reading lists, corporations are using it for diversity training. Matt's categorization of it is pretty accurate, whether it's a peer-reviewed study or not.

30Reply

JayJun 29

You've done no research, have no evidence for any of these claims, and sound like just another right wing talk radio victim tilting at academic windmills. Try visiting a campus! It's not filled with the hobgoblins living in your mind. And you might learn something!

1Reply

Super GJul 1

Here’s some research. According to its Office of Academic Personnel, the University of Washington, where DiAngelo is a professor, employed just 2.1% black professors as of 2019.

1Reply

Gaspatcho Crem'e D'MenthJun 30

"You've done no research, have no evidence for any of these claims" How in holy hell could you know that? You are an idiot. See I could prove that with facts already in evidence. But you cannot prove what you just said which also makes you a liar.

1Reply

JayJun 30

I can prove that it's not an academic book. How? By knowing what an academic book is.

Reply

johnJun 29

What if I told you... the "scholarship" you speak of is as vacuous as this pop culture distillation? Crit theory is a steaming pile of sophistry and pseudoscience that boils down to a double bind: racist if you do, racist if you don't. It's ironically religious in its conjurings of original sin and inquisitions.

15Reply

JayJun 29

Did you even graduate undergrad? Nothing you just wrote had any connection to any actual academic work. Try not to let your entire understanding of academia come from Hannity

Reply

maxJun 29

When you waste your brightest years learning nothing your only fallback is assuming the other person isn't as educated as you.

11Reply

JayJun 30

Right, educated people often describe entire academic disciplines as "steaming pile of sophistry and pseudoscience." Such an engaging take on decades of work by thousands of scholars.

Reply

MascotJun 30

Postmodernist paradigms and critical theory are on awfully shaky ground as far as fulfilling the criteria of academic disciplines, precisely because of the insistence on the absence of objective standards by so many of the most vocal proponents.

And numbers don't matter. It doesn't matter how many phrenologists there used to be.

I don't discount postmodernism entirely. I'm actually quite fond of intersectionality, but I think it's being abused because there isn't nearly enough of it- stopping with the factors of race, gender, and ethnicity ignores all of the other factors that influence the role and perspective of individuals in society, while also reducing individual humans to pigeonhole categories. A lot of the po-mo stuff I've read and heard implicitly relies on the assumption that the readers share general agreement with the author, and that discourse can be carried on by negotiating a series of categories expressed in generalities to the point of caricature.

And I am dubious about raising anyone's social critique, or their critical framework, to the level of "Theory." I'll hear out anyone's argument on that, but my position is currently with the opposition, so any points offered in support had better be persuasive. As of now, obfuscating rhetoric and grandiloquence accounts for most of what I've heard from the proponents.

2Reply

JayJun 30

LOL, your post is straight up gibberish. I can't think of a bigger giveaway of someone totally unversed in the field than the misuse of the term "postmodernism." Get thee to a library, moron. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Reply

MascotJun 30

If you really want to read people abusing postmodernist concepts, look no further than the way they're twisted by so many of the most vocal exponents of those ideas.

Also, a string of insults is not to be confused with effective refutation.

The first step is to realize that you have a problem, Jay. As does the neoliberal mainstream of the professional managerial class- what passes for the brain trust of the Democratic Party, in particular. They don't listen.

I've observed the syndrome for a long, long time. It's been a problem for a long, long time. Sam Smith noticed it decades ago http://prorev.com/ So did Ishmael Reed, who offered up some trenchant satire of its conceits in novels like The Last Days Of Louisiana Red and Japanese By Spring (when he wasn't skewering white supremacists and the American right, that is.)

So did Roger Morris, writer of the excellent 1996 book entitled Partners In Power. I just happened to find myself re-reading it the other night. I particularly recommend the chapter entitled "Washington III." Morris sounds exactly like Matt Taibbi does nowadays. The blinkered, self-dealing status quo of the self-ordained champions of American Establishment liberalism has shifted very little since 1995.

Reply

Milan van EijkJun 29

Just strategic digital opposition here guys. They are all over the place in Taibbi his sunstack comments. You know, since Matt is now seen as "problematic".

17Reply

JayJun 29

Awesome! Do I get paid for engaging you whiny bedwetters?

Reply

Milan van EijkJun 29

Wouldn't suprise me or just part of an opposition group of some sorts.

It's always the same tactics. Insults, non-sensical replies, smear tactics etc.

6Reply

Joshua ReaserJun 29

Yeah.... “hot garbage” ...that’s a good one 😂😂👎👎

1Reply

CertexJun 29

Be a good punk band name.

2Reply

AntipodeanJun 30

👍

Agreed, additionally, for example:

Propaganda has reached its zenith when each member of the target population thinks the same; when they are afraid to think differently. At this point ‘leadership’ may commit whatever atrocities it sees fit…in the certainty that the population will either not ‘see’ it, or will view the expression of criticism as a more heinous crime than the act being observed. This is achieved through cementing a ‘false equivalence’ in the mind of the group.

The propagandist seeks to bend the ‘group mind’. Thoughts and actions consistent with the ‘narrative’ are deemed to be socially acceptable & politically correct…ones that challenge it are regarded as socially UN-acceptable & politically IN-correct. Overtime this is reinforced through a dynamic that exists within every human grouping, and many species of mammal – fear of disapproval. Ergo, the propagandist is employing a form of ‘crowd control’.

When the fear of disapproval becomes so strong that one’s sense of belonging, or even physical survival, depend on adherence to the narrative…when failure to comply with it attracts immediate rebuke from other members of the group…then the population can be said to be policing itself. That is how ‘cults’ function, and more frequently than you might imagine…it’s how intelligence agencies and other governmental figures attempt to work through the media.

This is what Orwell warned of in the dystopia of ‘1984’. The Party had achieved what we might call a ‘maintenance state’ for the narrative – society was policing itself. For example, in Oceania, children were taught to report their parents to the ‘Thought Police’ if they demonstrated any sign of disloyalty to The Party. Disloyalty was considered a ‘thought crime’.

Source: https://renegadeinc.com/goal-propaganda-population-polices/

1Reply

TheMule99Jun 29

Given that the entire country goes into convulsions over a privileged black millionaire being exposed to a garage door pull down rope, perhaps it's time to have a dialog about #BlackFragility?

13Reply

Davidson A BarlettJun 29

And yet, "White Fragility" is a #1 seller. Which makes it's significance as a subject of debate self evident.

8Reply

JayJun 29

Yes but you cannot use it as an example of an academic field any more than The Big Lebowski exemplifies religious studies

2Reply

Gaspatcho Crem'e D'MenthJun 30

Seems you are stuck in that one groove. He was critiquing the book not vilifying it's academic bona fides. Let's get you out of the way right quick- seriously what did you think of the book?

Reply

JayJun 30

I've only read a small portion of it but think it's useful to start a long overdue discussion on race. No one should treat any book as gospel but there are some intriguing ideas in there, from what I can tell. White people must take a more proactive approach to talking about race and I think the thesis that a society's objective is not to be "color blind" to be a good corrective to a failed approach.

Reply

Joshua ReaserJun 29

👎🏼

7Reply

M of the LJun 29

"This rant is such hot garbage. "White Fragility" is not an academic book, it is not peer reviewed and it has nothing to do with academic scholarship on whiteness, critical race theory, or ethnicity studies. Complaining about a popular crossover book is fine, but you might as well say "Eat Pray Love" reveals what a fraud the field of Gastroenterology is. Pathetic. Try actually reading real academic books on a subject so you don't sound like such a buffoon next time, Matt. "

Jay,

Is it possible that since you work in academia and not the real world, you're not aware that this book is having real-world impact within corporate circles as a new HR focus?

And did you miss the part about the author going on prime time TV?

Jay, does it matter how inane the author or book is if it both influences millions of people and causes them to perform actions?

3Reply

JayJun 30

Why are you so afraid of people reading a book?

Reply

RemJun 30

Why is everyone defending this book so clearly incapable of being genuine or discussing these topics in good faith? Could it be that it's appealing to sociopathic grifters who see this as a ticket to the top?

Reply

Gaspatcho Crem'e D'MenthJun 29

Wow- it looks like we have a culture warrior that got his nerves set upon. Let us ponder the salient point Of Emmanuel Cafferty being fired would you think this hot garbage worth digesting if he gets his job back? Because if not- you Jay would be a racist...

2Reply

JayJun 30

Zing! I'm bested by your anecdote!

Reply

ConchJun 30

I just looked at DiAngelo's webpage. She emphasizes her doctorates. This stuff is her academic specialty. Check it out.

https://robindiangelo.com/

She may really belong in Pseud's Corner, but she herself does not think so!

Reply

WazoomannJun 29

Look in the mirror.

Reply

JJGJun 29

Dislike (highly).

Reply

Gerard vanderleunJun 29

'm not sure whether your blather is at 500stupid or 1000stupid so I guess I'll just let you dangle and dawdle in the stands of NOOSECAR waiting for your perfect master race to put you on the Podium of Wrong..

Reply

SkepticJun 29

Wow. I thought your article from two weeks ago on the media destroying itself was the best thing I'd read in a very long time. But this is better.

Matt, keep going. You're helping to save the country.

103Reply

Dale FitzgeraldJun 29

Matt sees the outcome of these policies, and the groupthink that will destroy their proponents, better than any author I can think of.

21Reply

MattykellyJun 29

Agree. This would be a better world to live in if there were more journalist like Mr. MATT.

15Reply

Joshua ReaserJun 29

I know, right? He's a David Halberstam... a Robert Caro... Mark Bowden... that puts it out in real-time. He'll never get the credit he desires.

9Reply

CertexJun 29

Agree 110%.

6Reply

J JVSJun 29

amen

2Reply

nopesJun 29

LOL at thinking the dingbats will read this.

Reply

Mike TuttleJun 29

Yes on this article, the anti media diatribes are tiresome.

Reply

JanetJun 29

We need more articles like this -- the cultural authoritarianism is becoming unbearable.

64Reply

Certex1 hr

Where is the longer version of this story promised a few days ago? Has it been published yet? I did subscribe to get it. Thanks.

Reply

William LugoJun 29

if you can be fired for liking a Trump tweet, I don't know how anyone thinks polling can even be remotely accurate anymore.

59Reply

BrianJun 29

Brexit being a perfect example. The media demonized leavers as racists and xenophobes, so everyone lied to pollsters.

16Reply

CertexJun 29

The population were lied to as well. Brexit is just basically an excuse for leaving the EU to sell the UK to America, so we can be bled dry for stuff like health care like the increasingly tragic USA.

1Reply

J JVSJun 29

You need a Nobel prize motherfucker...you are killing it

55Reply

SkepticJun 29

Either the Nobel Prize for Literature, or maybe the Nobel Peace Prize...

8Reply

Joshua ReaserJun 29

facts

4Reply

ToddJun 29

Matt has been on a roll, that’s for sure! I would say the Pulitzer, but that has become a worthless joke these days.

2Reply

VeronicaJun 29

I am the white mother of a mixed race daughter. I live in an ethnically diverse community, work in an ethnically diverse workplace and have friends and relatives who look very different from me.

Richard Leakey in The Making of Mankind posited that the real differences between people are cultural, not racial. Watching my little girl in the schoolyard playing with her diverse friends certainly illustrated that point of view.

Recently, however, I have learned that I am apparently the worst kind of racist because “I don’t see colour.” Of course I see colour, but it becomes irrelevant very quickly as friendships form and we focus on our similarities rather than on our differences.

51Reply

TylerJun 29

I recently found this out about myself too, that I'm a racist. Apparently I'm a racist because I think people should be evaluated based on their character, rather than the color of their skin. I believe that what matters about a person is what they think, what they believe, how they came to those conclusions, whether they can or will argue in good faith, and most importantly what they choose to do.

But because I said this, I was labeled a color blind racist. I was also told that everyone is a racist, and that it's impossible not to be racist. To me, that is insanity. If progress isn't possible, what are we doing? There are serious problems in the world right now. There are existential problems that humanity may or may not make it through; climate change, and people don't think about it a lot but nuclear annihilation is still a possibility. But here we all are having these insane moments of inclarity, where actually not caring about the color of a persons skin is the new racism.

Racism in itself is a bad thing, obviously, and wherever it exists it needs to be extinguished. But I think it's important to recognize what is and what is not racism. Not everything is racism. Not every brutal police killing is racism. There is no doubt that some are, but not all of them. Some are just simple police brutality.

To me this movement smacks of seeing echoes of past injustice, where perhaps current examples of that injustice are relatively less likely to happen. Seeing racists where perhaps we're only seeing echoes of racist policy that was established generations ago by actual racists. So the solution, to me, is some kind of mix of policy to address the problems, and people working to become more like you, Veronica.

And then, we need to address our more important problems. Because we do have them; climate change, wealth inequality, the threat of nuclear war. We can't care about racism if no humans are alive because our planet burned up. We can't live if the wealthiest among us control all of the wealth, and no one else has anything anymore.

I realize that I have unloaded all of this on your comment, but I've been reading a lot of comments and it all just came out. Thanks for reading.

22Reply

M of the LJun 29

Another biting piece, a refreshing take on reality, and a superior articulation of anything I could ever express, despite experiencing and feeling the same way about these topics. There are two in particular:

"People everywhere today are being encouraged to snitch out schoolmates, parents, and colleagues for thoughtcrime. The New York Times wrote a salutary piece about high schoolers scanning social media accounts of peers for evidence of “anti-black racism” to make public, because what can go wrong with encouraging teenagers to start submarining each other’s careers before they’ve even finished growing?

“People who go to college end up becoming racist lawyers and doctors. I don’t want people like that to keep getting jobs,” one 16 year-old said. “Someone rly started a Google doc of racists and their info for us to ruin their lives… I love twitter,” wrote a different person, adding cheery emojis."

I caught the same NYT article and sent it around, equally shocked that this is considered normal and mainstream. Does no one see this is a repeat of the type of tactics authoritarian governments of both right and left engaged in?

But there is more important piece:

"For corporate America the calculation is simple. What’s easier, giving up business models based on war, slave labor, and regulatory arbitrage, or benching Aunt Jemima? There’s a deal to be made here, greased by the fact that the “antiracism” prophets promoted in books like White Fragility share corporate Americas instinctive hostility to privacy, individual rights, freedom of speech, etc. "

That's exactly it. It's a diversionary tactic to preserve, not cancel, privilege. Going on some sort of antiracist crusade is a lot cheaper than increasing corporate tax, going after private equity and establishing an expensive national healthcare system.

It's deeply depressing. What is to be done? Are those who see reality through and depite the fog of popular illusions a minority in just about every society in the world?

48Reply

QuanJun 29

"What is to be done?" Here is my humble opinion (from one who risked his life escaping communism 40 years ago and now see my great America moving toward intolerant/oppressing society):

1. While there are serious problems on both the right and left, you needs to have a clarity on which problems that likely cause direst consequences. The clarity enables you to decide the side and to take actions. Having said that, It's quite clear for me to see that what the left is doing - cultural destruction (of books, movies, and statues) and increasing censorship in mainstream media, education and corporations- is taking the country toward a totalitarian society. Nothing is for scarier than this for me. With freedom, we always have hope and chances to improve our lives and society; however bad it is. Without it lives are miserable and hopeless as history shows us.

2. Assuming that you have same fear as I have, a couple things we can do are:

- Share with your loved ones, friends and neighbors what you think. This is important because the current mobs are trying to silent people who don't support them.

- Support and vote for people/organizations that are fighting for the same cause as your are.

21Reply

SkutchJun 29

Why are you assuming voting has anything to do with anything in a capitalist system that puts policy in the realm of the "free market" where only elites can afford it ? Don't forget the right is just as guilty of pushing corporate fascism and neofeudalism as the left. This fake paradigm hide the actual division which is top vs bottom. It's always been top vs bottom since the species stopped hunting and gathering.

1Reply

Rey AllenJun 29

Exactly. For all the talk about raging against a corrupt system, so many of these people are blind to the fact that the real system would rather us bicker and burn down cities over this than actually address the root cause of income inequality. It's insane. It's really a perfect firestorm, too, because this hatred and division can clearly be perpetuated for a long time to come.

Honestly, people are so worked up over this, and they're acting alarmingly sheepish, that I really do not know if there's any righting this ship. It is scary.

21Reply

RemJun 29

We all feel that way though "i dont know if theres any way to fix this". There is, us. We can't let them have a puppet in the executive branch. Say what you want about Trump, the neolib/neocon establishment HATES him. Learn how to keep oligarchal power at bay for another 4 years with this one weird trick!

2Reply

KurtJun 29

+1

https://youtu.be/XdH38k0iUgI

2Reply

inmate-6574311Jun 29

> the real system would rather us bicker and burn down cities over this than actually address the root cause of income inequality

Why not say what you think it is?

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 29

Children reporting on each other and their parents. Don't we condemn Nazi Germany and Stalin and Mao for doing this. Of course, now its OK because the NYT says it is.

12Reply

SkepticJun 29

It's a great tribute to Matt that this site has become a meeting ground between those social democrats and those rightists who believe civil liberties are not negotiable, the cornerstone of the country. If we're going to survive this very dangerous moment as a nation, we have to come together on that. If you're on the left, believe it or not, many Trump supporters agree with you on this life-and-death issue. I don't know anywhere else where this dialogue is even happening.

45Reply

RemJun 29

100%, I'm begging conservatives to listen to the sane liberals as the only way to heal the country. The multinational corporations are out of hand and doing absolutely anything to maintain their stature in a period of moral and cultural stagnation and decline. We need Teddy Roosevelt back.

But at the same time, sane liberals need to recognize that a Trump victory is the only way the neoliberal establishment is going to be crushed. A Biden victory will have them entrench themselves even more deeply until massive unrest is the only possible outcome as they cling panicked to their wealth and influence. Things are coming to a head and we need to put aside smaller side issues we can resolve later, the global neolib establishment has surrendered itself to foreign influence and is a clear danger to the republic. How many in our government have been bought by China? How do we recover from that without a pugilist like Trump? As scary as he may seem to you, he may be the weapon we need. Please think soberly about this and consider the people who hate him most.

14Reply

MascotJul 1

Donald Trump is a hapless incompetent. He has no business as President.

With a tight rein and the understanding that he'd face prosecution if he involved himself in corrupt dealings, Trump might have made an effective Commerce Secretary, once upon a time. But that ship sailed long ago.

And the Commies are not going to take over once he's defeated for re-election.

1Reply

SkutchJun 30

Yes, and how many within the Trump administration have been bought off by Saudi Arabia and Israel ? So funny how people actually buy into conman Trump's baffle 'em with BS patriotism and scapegoating. We're just along for the ride now. Trump is not going to risk everything to save you, he never gave a warm runny shit about you in the first place.

Reply

William TaylorJun 30

Mostly true, but a little corruption is better than Communism.

2Reply

wssaeJul 1

Oh yes, just "a little corruption". I grew up in Africa, it is never a little when it is out in the open for everyone to see and then witness no legal ramification for such theft. Just leads to corruption permeating all structures of the government because the precedent has been set. In the end, nothing in the system will work without corruption

2Reply

RamiJun 30

so how many people...

I don’t know. Do YOU? Can you name names or are you just ranting?

I honestly do not care about Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or Israel. I want the USA to be free from all this PC garbage, or this constant indoctrination by a media that is more a surrogate for a political party. And that goes to the 99% of the MSM On le left and for the few of the right (Fox, Breibart, and Daily Caller....any more?)?

2Reply

SkutchJul 1

There is no left and there is no right. There's top and bottom and that's all you get to choose from. Left and right = divide and conquer just like race, religion, ethnicity, geography, superstition, and what ever else the elite can come up with to divide the masses. Management 101 when you can back it up with violence.

Thanks for admitting to your xenophobia though, it does help explain your unwarranted fear of frightened folks desperately trying to change what they see as injustice within a good 'ol boy system that has kept 70% of the world's population under it's thumb for several centuries now.

The empire is dying and you can't vote your way out of it. It's not up for negotiation and hasn't been since the beginning.

Reply

William TaylorJun 30

I made a similar plea to family members yesterday. Trump provides a lot of noise, but don't miss the signal. We are largely being played by enemies of America. Freedom is hanging on by a thread.

3Reply

StxbuckJun 30

My view of Trump as president is like what The Dude tells Walter when he wants to shoot the league manager in The Big Lebowski

“You’re not wrong, you’re just an asshole”.

Reply

SkutchJun 30

What freedom ? When where we free in this country ? What makes you think Trump isn't just holding out for a bigger pay out after he leaves office ? He's never had any courage before, so why would he risk his life for you when he prides himself on screwing over everyone he does business with ?

Reply

TylerJun 29

Such interesting and crazy times we live in.

It strikes me as unlikely that the entire spectrum of political values could be evenly divided into right/left. Personally, I tend to think of myself as a liberal person; I think that the science of climate change is persuasive, I think that publicly funded higher education up to the first bachelors degree is a good idea, I think that a universal healthcare system is a good idea. Those things strike me as investments in the citizenry; a quality, well rounded education would help Americans be more apt to think critically even in times like these, to make our populace competitive on the global market; to be able to take the economic fight to the gigantic gorilla in the room that is China. To be healthier as a people to make that work likely, or even possible.

But I also am an ardent supporter of people's rights. I support our right to freedom of speech, even if it's something that I disagree with. I want to hear people speak freely, I want to be able to engage in civil discourse with them. I want to hear your response to comment, even if you disagree with me.

I support people's right to keep and bear arms. I do so myself. The last thing I would want to do would be to hurt or kill anyone else, but if it comes down to a life and death struggle, I want to come out the other side whole. I want my friends and family to be safe.

So I think there is a large middle ground that is disappearing from the public discourse, because that middle ground doesn't do anything to help either the right or the left; with a duopoly like American politics, the only way to distinguish either party is by exaggerating the differences. They (the political parties) focus on the margins of the political bases. And so we've been dragged to this point in our history by perverse incentives; the incentive to seek and validate the most extreme views that people may hold, and use that to get elected.

12Reply

Bill McNealJun 29

The middle ground isn't shrill enough, and we're not newsworthy. There's no advertising revenue in reporting about how reasonable people can get along even when they don't agree on every issue.

4Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

"I think that publicly funded higher education up to the first bachelors degree is a good idea."

Incorrect. This idea shows a lack of empathy. Your writing skills exceed those of most people. How are you at working on cars? Could you operate heavy machinery for 8 hours a day, 6 days a week? Are you a good hitter? How's your batting average? The examples are endless.

The average IQ is 100. I don't need to see anything more from you to know that yours is above that average. In general, you likely experienced school as positive, with occasional rewards for your performance. Maybe you weren't as good at some subjects as others, but overall, school was a good time and book learning suits you.

That's not how it is for everyone, but you project to come to your conclusion. Many, if not most, people do not find the experience to be rewarding. In fact it's torturous because they lack your innate abilities - your aptitudes. They must rely on "social promotions" just to graduate from 8th grade. They struggle through high school to get that diploma. And after they have it, they are barely literate, not because they didn't show up or try to make good grades. They just didn't have the aptitudes.

Why should they have to put up with 4 more years of that when they could be doing constructive work in the construction trade? Not only does this focus on education regardless of ability not help - it can piss a person off. It can make a person want to rebel against a system that only values book learning. It can prevent a person from learning real world skills, developing craftsmanship, being an apprentice to a journeyman in some trade. In fact, in America today, that's just what it does.

3Reply

TylerJun 30

I never said that higher education should be required, but it should be made available for those who could make good use of it. Another thing I'd like to point out; education shouldn't be a pipeline to create a worker fit for a job. That can be one outcome of a quality education, but in my opinion it shouldn't be the primary focus. On the job training ought to serve that role. Education should serve to expose people to critical thinking skills, to familiarize people with the humanities, to create a well rounded person who is capable of tackling any number of varied problems that we can all expect to face in our lives. And I understand that people have different aptitudes; I'm not looking down on tradesmen; actually I am a tradesman myself!

I think that education is important; learning language is education, speaking and writing is education. Learning about our history is education, and that is so important for people to know, so that we can learn from that history and strive not to repeat the same mistakes. It's important to dig into the political revolutions in our history, species wide, so that we can recognize the pitfalls, and be on watch for them.

In the trades, especially apprenticeship programs, people tend to be paid to learn those skills! That is awesome, and something I'd like to see applied to public education in a wider sense; at this point it's the exact opposite.

2Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

Point taken.

1Reply

CurtJun 30

Tyler said nothing about mandating higher education, nor anything to suggest that trades and professions that don't require higher education aren't important and valuable. He just shared his own general political positions, one of which being that higher ed should be funded by the government up to the first bachelor's degree.

1Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

Education has become more like indoctrination. It's the Chinese model.

Reply

TylerJul 2

I think there's room for criticism of our curriculum. Or at least, there OUGHT to be room for criticism. I welcome it, for one.

When people make an argument with this structure, I push back against it. The structure goes like this; There's a problem with X, so we should get rid of X! I've seen this argument applied to religion, to government, to science, and to education.

I push back against it because of course there are going to be problems with those things. There are going to be problems with ALL things. It is a difficult job to determine what the problems are specifically, in each domain, and to resolve them. If the problem is that the government spends money inefficiently, the solution (in my opinion) shouldn't be to cut off funding for the government, it should be to make sure the government is spending money in ways that are transparent and efficient. If there are problems in academia, the solution shouldn't be to destroy those institutions of learning, but rather to study what exactly is happening in academia and to resolve whatever problems we find there.

If a scientific study comes out with an interesting finding that turns out to be false, the solution to that problem isn't to abandon science; the solution is to apply better and cleaner science to the problem, so that we can figure out what exactly is going on.

Reply

MascotJul 1

There isn't anything more dogmatic than Spearman's "g"- the supposed basis for IQ measures. And you seem to be fine with leaving that pedestrian concept unexamined. Look into the difference on how people with autism perform on Raven's Progessive Matrices vs. the Weschler intelligence tests. Yet both of them supposedly measure the same ability- "general intelligence", Spearman's "g"!

It's a crock.

Reply

AngieJun 29

I agree with you completely. The middle ground has no voice whatsoever, and I think it's because it doesn't polarize people and/or agree with "the narrative", and therefore doesn't make media outlets money. It's a form of censorship, which Matt also wrote about recently (in regard to COVID, but applies in this situation also).

3Reply

J JVSJun 29

amen

5Reply

AtlanticistJun 29

"If you're on the left, believe it or not, many Trump supporters agree with you on this life-and-death issue. I don't know anywhere else where this dialogue is even happening. "

In the UK thankfully, we have Unherd.com, where you will find such writing. It's become a platform for the confluence of old fashioned liberals like me and the old working class who, post-Brexit have become completely unmoored from the modern virtue-signalling Labour Party.

The Triggernometry podcast on youtube too, is a fusing of these two strands.

I've given up on pretty much all other media, except I can't seem to stop trolling the Financial Times comments sections.....

3Reply

AntzJun 30

Taking note of the resources. Thanks guys.

James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian (et al.) of Sokal Squared Hoax fame have and amazing website that has education, analysis and most importantly - strategies for combating Critical Race Theory.

Steal the motte and bomb the bailey!

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/do-better-than-critical-race-theory/

Reply

SkepticJun 30

I hear scary things about restrictions on free speech in the UK (criminal prosecutions for off-color jokes on social media, etc.), but perhaps they're exaggerated. If I may ask, what's the situation?

Reply

Unladen ParrotJun 29

Agree with you on unherd and triggernometry. Also John Anderson interviews and Glenn Show on youtube. https://heterodoxacademy.org/

Reply

RamiJun 30

“It's a great tribute to Matt that this site has become a meeting ground between those social democrats and those rightists who believe civil liberties are not negotiable“

I’m not exactly a “rightist” but a libertarian. Someone who is fiscally conservative (As long as is no Enron sucking up the staff retirement savings) , socially Liberal (as long as you don’t demand for me to accept the 120% of the progressive agenda or else Im Hitler), but yeah, I believe civil liberties are non negotiable. So you welcome to call me “ Hitler” or a “Decadent sinner who will go hell” If I couldn’t care less about people’s private sex lives. That’s individualism, isn’t it?

2Reply

Dale FitzgeraldJun 29

Absolutely agree. Liberals often aren’t these days.

3Reply

StxbuckJun 30

Good point, and as a libertarianish type, I agree completely.

Reply

Matt R.2 hr

Over the last several weeks, I've seen several of my friends post glowing reviews of the book, but when I saw that Michael Eric Dyson wrote the forward I was extremely skeptical of the content and message. There are admirable black voices on the topic of race relations in America, but he is such a bad faith actor in every conversation I've witnessed that I cannot take this book seriously. So, I thank you, Matt Taibbi, for being the shield and interpreter so that I didn't waste my time and money on this.

Reply

JoeJun 29

As soon as they used the term "white fragility" I knew this book was actually about black fragility.

Tell you what, I'm going to live my life now. We had a black president. If you aren't doing well in life, look in the mirror.

9Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

If a person is half black and half white, why is s/he called black? Back in the day, s/he would be called mulatto.

Reply

ConchJun 30

Very likely because "mulatto" has been banned by someone. Why not just call him white? (Since he is half white.)

What bothers me most about the current craziness is that having learned for years that "race" is a social construct, now we have to bow and scrape before this concept, and it is being made ever more "real"by the very same "social construct" people. They are overseeing the extreme "racializing" of our social environment. This is going to create far greater divisions in the future among children whose mental frameworks are being created now.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

I see. So you figure the more accurate term, mulatto, has been canceled. And the purpose is to drive a wedge between people - to divide us, as in divide and conquer. Could be.

2Reply

ConchJun 30

I don't know why "mulatto" is not used. The word "canceled" may be anachronistic and imprecise, since it is I believe a recent coinage.

The dictionary says this:

"mu·lat·to

noun

\-at(ˌ)ō, -atə, -a(ˌ)tō, -atə\

plural mulattoes also mulattos

1

now sometimes offensive : the first-generation offspring of a black person and a white person

2

now sometimes offensive : a person of mixed white and black ancestry

Origin of MULATTO

Spanish mulato, from mulo mule, from Latin mulus — more at mule

First Known Use: 1591 (sense 1)"

It may be that words that designate specific racial categories in terms of the fraction of African American have been ruled out because (I believe) these terms (such as also quadroon, octoroon) used to carry some legal and social weight in the antebellum South by distinguishing groupings within the African American community.

1Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

Oh, so somebody decided it was offensive, so there ya go. Typical. Toss accuracy for blackness and diversity. I know. Some lady had a conniption fit when I described Obama as mulatto on Medium. That was part of the reason they banned me, so I use it now kinda like Trump retweets posts to troll the lefties.

I don't get your "canceled" comment. Simultaneously anachronistic and "of recent coinage." The latter was my meaning. Just trying to be trendy, ya know.

Reply

ConchJun 30

My point re "canceled" was that (I think) "canceled" came along after BO's presidency, or descriptions of him before his presidency. "Canceled" has a particular meaning in a particular setting and time frame So, just doesn't seem to match a discussion of why BO is called black. I expect the word "mulatto" was deemed offensive sometime after the Civil War, because of its social and legal implications. Just guessing, though.

Reply

MascotJun 30

No, it's because of the One Drop rule.

The fact that the term "mulatto" was seldom used in the US- particularly in the era of slavery- is because it wasn't a useful distinction for the slaveowners who made the rules.

In the US in the slavery era, someone was either "pure White"- no traceable ancestry of African heritage- or Black. Those were the rules.

That's indisputably a form of Political Correctness- and a very rigidly enforced one at that, in its day. But its origin had nothing to do with oversensitive Leftism.

All of the race-related language terms and connotations go back to an era when White Anglo Europeans ran 100% of everything. And now we're stuck with them- to some extent, for the time being- because of that tradition of popular usage.

Really, kids...a lot of the material should have been covered as Page One in at least one of your high school classes. I got this in class as a sophomore in an American public high school in 1970. And I have to wonder what's happened to education in this country since then.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

In all that verbiage, I don't see the connection between the One Drop rule you cite and the term, mulatto. Mulattoes are 50/50.

Reply

MascotJul 1

My point was that the term "mulatto" was historically irrelevant as a distinction in American racial categories. By law, and in common speech.

In this country, it hasn't mattered if someone was "50/50", or 75%, or even 87.5% or more European heritage. If the other fraction could be traced to an African ancestor, they were Black.

Those are the rules. I didn't say they made logical sense.

The word "mulatto"- a racial comparison to mules- doesn't make logical sense, either. Mules are the offspring of two different species- horses and donkeys- not two different races. As offspring of two different species, mules are sterile- unable to reproduce. Unlike "mulatto" humans.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

What's worse than a racist leftist? Capitalizing black is how I will be able to know the writer is a racist leftist henceforth.

Wordy writers are usually redundant. An example is "logical sense." I figure you can come up with some 500 word explanation for how that's not redundant.

Back on topic - So what? I know you didn't grow up in an integrated neighborhood because you reply to a real world example with academic gibberish that ignores reality.

Reply

Mascot2 hr

I get that you don't like to stress your mind with too much literacy exercise. But there are other types of sense, such as intuitive sense and generally agreed sense, neither of which depend on logic.

"I know you didn't grow up in an integrated neighborhood"

wrong

"Capitalizing black is how I will be able to know the writer is a racist leftist henceforth"

the simplicity of a litmus test is so appealing to people with flabby thinking skills.

Reply

ROD SANDERS2 hr

"I get that you don't like to stress your mind with too much literacy exercise."

I get that you want to fight. That's why the software need an ignore feature.

"But there are other types of sense, such as intuitive sense and generally agreed sense, neither of which depend on logic."

I see. So that's what you use.

"the simplicity of a litmus test is so appealing to people with flabby thinking skills."

Occam's Razor works for me. That you prefer flab is in clear evidence in many posts.

Reply

RamiJun 30

Actually as of Hispanic origin myself, no scratch that. I’m Hispanic full blown. I can tell you that the term mulatto is not a good one. It’s origin isn’t only racist but beastial. The term actually comes from the spaniard colonizers of the Americas.

A “mula or mulo” (mule in English, male or female) is the creature resulting from the inbreed of a horse and a donkey. The horse considered the purest and genteel of both was, of course the white Spanish men, while the donkey, considered the inferior dumber creature, was...well you know... thus the term “mulato”, still used in the Spanish Americas.

Not so with the mix of spaniards and natives such as incas, tainos, Aztecs, mayas, etc. those are call “mestizos” (mezcla or mix) considered superior to the mulatos..

Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

Interesting. Do you have some documentary reference for that?

Reply

MascotJun 30

"Back in the day, s/he would be called mulatto."

No, those are French and Spanish constructions.

In the US of A, "one drop black, and you're Black." Although that was sometimes encoded as greater than 1/64th blood quantum, for legal purposes.

Reply

Andy RobinsonJul 2

I've teased a family member about this, as his genetic testing revealed black African ancestry about five generations back...

Reply

MascotJun 30

Understand: those were the rules.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

What rules? I think you just wanna fight. I'm searching for the ignore button.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

The word is English, a language you might want to study before ignorantly pontificating. It's roots are irrelevant to my comment if that's what you're referring to. I grew up with the word. Apparently that was before you appeared on the planet.

Reply

MascotJul 1

The word "mulatto" is no more English then the word "armadillo" is. Yes, you will find both in dictionaries of English nowadays.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

Like I succinctly wrote, which you appear to have ignored before replying, its etymology is irrelevant to my comment alluding to common usage back in the day. See sentence #2 of 3 above.

Reply

MascotJul 1

So "back in the day" is when, exactly?

nrn, this is tedious, next

Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

If it's so tedious, why do you persist?

BTW, I meant I fell asleep in your class. I grew up in the 1950s and 60s, city mostly.

Reply

Jared Mendoza8 hr

Goodness Matt, this knee-jerk reaction was just trash. It’s not clear that he even read the book...instead he needles random quotes. He doesn’t understand - the reason why the goal of a raceless society in which people are judged on content of character failed is because of racist institutions that favored white males heavily and discriminated against everyone else. So you, George Will, and every other mediocre white guy that has made it through white boy affirmative action needs to be reprogrammed. We are going to try a new method and see if having you see race in order to not be racist, we are going to have to clean out our institutions. Either get in the way or get run over.

Reply

Mel2 hr

What knee-jerk reaction? Yours, methinks... Matt is right on about this topic.

Reply

Jared Mendoza8 hr

Sorry I got a bit heated because I do like some of your work. You are just clearly not qualified to comment freely on this topic and in these times. You need to listen, learn and read or your just going to keep throwing out trash like that article.

Reply

Caek Islove6 hr

Actually, I just checked the list of those who are qualified to comment freely on this issue and you ain't on it. Matt however, is on the list. Sorry, but you're free to wait in line with the rest of the unqualified.

2Reply

wayne8 hr

my guess is if someone disagrees with you about white fragility you will say they are unqualified

1Reply

Donna PartowJun 29

Another incredible piece. Thank you for your mental clarity and moral courage - a rare combination during this unhinged "hinge of history"

34Reply

Byron AndersonJun 29

Can you hear the boot steps coming for you Matt? I doubt they will be able to talk you into firing yourself? Thank you for keeping alive nuance in these difficult discussions.

34Reply

DanJun 29

My first run in with Anti-Racist activists was my fellow Middle School students. They questioned every student about their Christian Faith while quoting a fake bible verse of God creating black people with a curse. They then assaulted any student who refused to denounce their faith. My parents explained to me what racism was when I got home, my best friend was black and I didn't initially understand the concept of race at my age. Turns my teachers were orchestrating it.

In high school I ran into a similar group that was allied with radical LGBT activists. When they weren't manufacturing fake hate crimes against themselves, they liked to harass the Catholic girls running a bake sale for the homeless. In community college part of our student fees for the Diversity + Inclusion center went to buying baseball bats. There was no baseball team, but their were some very aggressive SJW types. Evergreen State was mild compared to Austin, TX.

My Freshman year at college my first C was by the teacher of my mandatory diversity and inclusion course. I got A's in calculus and physics. The C was b/c the Prof would sabotage the grades of the white male students. She even made a false accusation of cheating to the honor council against one of the students who made the mistake of debating her.

These were between 4 and 11 years before Trump ran for president. My experiences in the professional work force have been far worse.in terms of cultural authoritarianism. I have never voted for a Republican for federal office in my life. I am likely voting for Trump in 2020 simply b/c these people scare me.

33Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

I am sympathetic, but think this through. A Trump victory will give these people far more power. In 2016, they cried. They are much more empowered now and a Trump victory will probably see, not crying, but riots the next day. I am not saying that the country should be bullied into voting for the Democratic candidate, but I am saying that if you are only considering Trump in order to fight back against this insanity, that strategy might backfire.

5Reply

cmcc_ausJun 29

On the face, that seems like a good argument. But like you said, "think this through." You are saying that the rioting will only get worse if this president is re-elected. I want to know, what would make the rioting get better? I suppose it's better if we learn to tolerate it as normal and natural.

6Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

BLM and related groups are pushing hard for a Biden win, even diverting funds they receive to Biden's campaign. A perceived "win" and they have little to riot about. I think Biden and team will provide plenty of window dressing and signaling that these groups' demands will be addressed. Of course, they will not (see, e.g., Obama) but smoke and mirrors almost always work.

3Reply

SkepticJun 29

I may be misreading, but you seem to be saying that people are using rioting and violence to hold the country hostage, and if we give them what they want, they'll stop. That's not how it usually works. People who play that way just up their demands, until they control you completely.

24Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

Yes, I am saying that. But I was not saying we should acquiesce to the bullies. I was talking about outcomes in responding to the original post where the OP was so fed up, he was considering a vote for Trump. All I am saying is that is not a reason to vote for Trump as it is very likely that a Trump victory will give the mob more power. (To which a Trump response may cause an eruption this country cannot stand.) If you believe that the DNC (the actual arm in control) will give in to the demands of BLM and related groups, I believe you are naive. The DNC will give lip service, they will provide window dressing, but there is no way they will let those demands take over. Again the point is: a Trump victory will give these groups more power and ultimately could result in something like a civil war. Whereas a Biden victory will placate the mob without really giving them what they want.

1Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

And I would love to hear your thoughts on my assessment of the potential outcomes, which was the entire point of my original reply to the OP. So far, this has not been addressed in any of these comments.

Reply

SkepticJun 29

Honor people who engage in peaceful protests, but don't reward hostage takers, and prosecute people who use destruction and violence to the full extent of the law. If nationwide entities are used to organize violence and destruction (again, not talking about peaceful protests), use racketeering laws and other tools to stop it. Help people who are hurt or suffer destruction of their property to sue responsible organizations under RICO.

This approach is entirely consistent with civil liberties and rule of law, and will lead to a good outcome. Some of this is happening right now. It will not happen under a Biden Justice Department.

8Reply

Starry GordonJun 29

I think some kind of substantial, material change in the social order would have to take place. That seems unlikely because the ruling class of the society might lose its power in such a change, and consequently they will oppose substantial changes, and because they are the ruling class, they will be able to prevent them from happening, either by force, or fraud, or fancy footwork. And this is what we observe. The choice between Trump and Biden does not suggest that electoral politics is going to come up with a solution.

Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

I agree to a point. However, I believe if Trump is re-elected, the mob will be very angry and perhaps violent. The ruling class will contain the mob by force and this could get quite ugly. The media will probably support the "woke" mob -thus increasing their power, and demonize the contrary mobs that likely will come out fighting.With a Biden election, the "woke" mob will be less angry. The ruling class and its media handmaiden will keep the social order intact by trickery. The mob will get little but they will think they got more.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

Forget about it. This is nothing compared to '68 when there were real gripes. This is election year political theater. Kick back and enjoy the show, but don't sell your guns.

Reply

Starry GordonJun 30

Remember the media are bourgeois (attached to the ruling class, as you note). They will back the proles, but only to a point, and in any case they don't seem very effective. No matter who is elected, the lives of the proles seem likely to get worse, and their mood more angry. In the last go-'round, a minor incident, the murder of a Black man by a police officer, something that happens all the time, set off hundreds of protests, demonstrations, riots, and incidents of looting and arson. I'm wondering what the next one will be like. Better stock up on rice and beans, I guess.

Reply

ConchJun 30

Do you really think those hundreds of riots were "spontaneous"? Your previous comments imply that you assume that somehow the Dems control these mobs.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

Do you capitalize white in mid-sentence like you do black when referring to race? If not, you're a racist.

Reply

ConchJun 30

Next.20, If what you speculate is true, it is pretty solid evidence of what we already suspect: that the "woke" mob is already a proxy for the Dem. Party.

Nuff said! I'll take Trump over the Dem creeps.

Reply

SkepticJun 29

I don't think the traditional Dem establishment can control the hard left any more. An example: Ilhan Omar made some clearly antisemitic statements. Nancy Pelosi, to her credit, tried to bring a resolution to the floor condemning antisemitism without naming Omar directly but clearly pointed at her. Omar pulled together progressive allies from the CBC and elsewhere, and Pelosi found she didn't have the votes. In the end, the resolution was watered down to condemn every kind of bigotry including islamophobia, and Omar cheerfully voted for it and claimed a victory against islamophobia. Along the way, Omar and AOC rubbed it in by accusing Pelosi of disrespecting women of color. Pelosi was subdued.

8Reply

ConchJun 30

" Ilhan Omar made some clearly antisemitic statements. "

Actually, she made some true statements about the power and influence of the Jewish Lobby and about Palestinians' human and legal rights. Of course Pelosi had to show here overlords in Tel Aviv and Chicago and DC that she was earning her pay.

Reply

SkepticJun 30

“Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” --Ilhan Omar

Reply

ConchJun 30

She's right about that, too!

Israel has hypnotized a considerable portion of the world into not seeing what is right before their eyes, or pretending not to see.

Reply

SkepticJun 30

Sounds legit.

Reply

cmcc_ausJun 29

Stockholm Syndrome. You become sympathetic to those who hold you hostage. After all , they hold your fate in their hands, and so you would hope you could understand and trust them,.

6Reply

SkepticJun 29

Or as Churchill said: You had to choose between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

6Reply

WazoomannJun 29

Agreed, it never works this way. Most people learn this lesson if they have children. "Let them eat cake"

2Reply

MascotJun 30

That just-so fable doesn't exactly explain the response to the 1967 Kerner Commission report. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/06/22/the-history-of-the-riot-report

Reply

ConchJun 30

"

next.20.yrs@gmail.com19 hr

BLM and related groups are pushing hard for a Biden win, even diverting funds they receive to Biden's campaign. "

this is one of the very concerning aspects brought up by the "person of color" who wrote the letter to the UCBerkeley History Department: that the dept. was collecting donations for BLM, and those funds are going directly to ActBlue. So, the UCBerkeley History Dept has been hopelessly politicized and "partisanized."

Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

You've just described the way Republicans (i.e., the New Dixiecrats) have been trying to peel black voters away from Democrats for the past 52 years.

Reply

DanJun 29

Trump is a faux-populist corporatist, con-man and Biden spent his career as the legal arm of credit card companies and debt collectors.

There is no real choice in this election just like with Clinton. We the People are screwed either way.

18Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

Can't disagree there. But my crystal ball says if Trump is re-elected, the SJW, Woke, and CRT's will seize more power. If Biden is elected, we can hope he (or more precisely, his puppet masters) will provide plenty of window dressing to appease this crowd but the craziness will subside. Otoh, a Trump election and the ensuing riots will end in a Trump law and order response, which will put us perilously close to some kind of civil war.

7Reply

John SkookumJun 29

The Cold Civil War is well under way. Skirmishes began two decades ago (Bush vs. Gore, Rathergate, the un-personing of Sarah Palin.) It's been raging since the day Trump won in 2016. It will go from cold to hot before 2030, Trump or no Trump.

I welcome it, and the opportunity for moral clarity it will provide. The greatest Rectification of Names in 2000 years.

7Reply

Gerard vanderleunJun 29

Don't look now but y'er soakin' in it.

7Reply

RemJun 29

So acquiesce to the terrorists pulling down our history and denying entire racial groups agency? You're insane. God help us if Trump isn't re-elected. No one will be opposing the neoliberal establishment at that point. If you think you guys aren't next for the purge, you're underestimating how entrenched these power structures are and will become without massive corporate and bueaucratic breakups by a strong executive branch. It's scary that we've arrived at this, but we have to look at it soberly.

4Reply

SkutchJun 29

Statues are not history. Statues have traditionally been made to honor people of great character or great achievements. Tearing down a statue is not erasing history, it's tearing down a statue. The history you speak of was written by the elite's who won and is never accurate to begin with.

1Reply

SlitzyJun 30

Is it okay to tear down MLK monument on the Mall?

Reply

SkutchJun 30

Will that mean he never existed ? Will it directly change history and will the history books all magically change ? You're just proving my point that frothy emotional appeal can't replace actual history. He was a man, not a statue. If I tip over your grave stone will that mean you never existed ?

Reply

RemJun 30

So we surrender to the iconoclastic demands of domestic terrorists and their billionaire stringpullers because "statues are not history"? Or were you just being pedantic during the biggest cluster of crises the republic has faced in recent memory? So many of you sheltered liberals aren't even serious about this, you just use politics as a vehicle to show off how much knowledge you attained in school. We don't have time for your depressive AKSHUALLY BS. We get it, you read books. Noted.

Reply

SkutchJun 30

So the Boston Tea party was perpetrated by Terrorists ? Bacon's rebellion, Shay's rebellion, The Whiskey rebellion ? Kinda funny how you think you're an authority on who's a domestic terrorist based upon your own political bias. Maybe you should stop judging the people you're accusing of judging you ??

Reply

MascotJun 30

Comments like that are no less crazy than the Hillarycrats predicting the advent of unstoppable Brownshirt fascism in November 2016, after Trump won the election.

Step away from the monitor and go for a walk.

Reply

RamiJun 30

“will provide plenty of window dressing to appease this crowd “

The most disappointing thing in this is that until recently I believed that both Dems and Reps while having different approaches to solve the country’s problems they had a core agreement In the basics: USA is a democratic representative republic; The individual rights enshrined in the constitution are not negotiable. The need to defend and protect the USA is a priority above all. Individual liberties and system of justice reigns above all.

But this is not what we’ve seen in the last 4-8 years. Democrats are willing to dismantle the country for votes. The so called “voter supresssion of minorities” is just a fold for let illegals vote. They are more willing to defend illegal aliens than to protect american workers, they want to make a state out of the federal capital city for those votes, they are willing to dismantle the police, the electoral college vote, even the Supreme Court only for votes. So sad!

2Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

It's always amusing when you trumphumpers start out a comment like that trying to pretend you're not rightwing fascists but immediately give it away by projecting what you're doing the country onto Dems. It must be part of the indoctrination by Cult of Trump that makes you think you have a cloak of invisibility.

Reply

AldenJun 30

The civil war is here at our doorstep. Time to prepare and be ready to defend your family and property, because the government will NOT do it. BLM wants revenge and submission.

Reply

MascotJun 30

go buy yourself an ice cream cone.

Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

Gad, that's (you're) pitiful.

1Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

White Supremacist Paranoia and Fragility in one rancid package.

Reply

AldenJun 30

Not really. We've got spoiled children running around claiming victimhood while destroying our country. Reality sucks don't it? It's gotta be true....I saw it on CNN

1Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

It's always good comedy when trumphumpers who worship a "man" with the emotional maturity of a 3 year old yammer on about spoiled children.

Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

My BS Detector has picked up the very strong signal of a White European Kultur Kampf Krieger.

Reply

RamiJun 30

I’m a republican and make no fuss about it. I voted for Trump because he was the republican candidate. I don’t suffer from TDS but live constantly furious about Trump unpresidential behavior, specially the stupid tweets.

But there is ONE issue for me tops it all: Freedom of Speech. That sacred, first amendment enshrined in the US Constitution.

It’s been said, that great minds talk about ideals. Moderate minds talk about events. Small minds talk about people.

Trump as person is a pain in the b...tt, bombastic and unlikable guy, but he has not enforced a policy of silencing people. He isn’t the one that has cancelled someone for saying “All lives matter” or for saying “man and woman are different”. He isn’t the one stopping and protesting a conservative speaker in a school. The progressive left is the one that calls anyone who doesn’t agree 120% with them “a racist” “a Hitler” a transphobic, deplorable or whatever. And if it just stayed at insult level,it wouldn’t be a proble, but today real people lives are being destroyed. Jobs terminated, over the slightest thing.

Like anyone else I want a return to normal politics of respect and disagreement Which is why I voted for Clinton in 2008 Dem primaries and then for McCain and Romney is 2008 and 2012. But those two were demonized. Talk about the “boy who cried wolf”. I didn’t think of Sarah Palin, but I did think of Freedom of Speech. So here I go again...

2Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

You: "Trump as person is a pain in the b...tt, bombastic and unlikable guy, but he has not enforced a policy of silencing people."

He and all the Rethuglicans are doing everything possible to keep people from voting in Nov. and if that isn't "silencing" nothing is.

1Reply

tom mitchellJun 30

No! Nominating Biden is a severe form of voter discouragement. Silencing is shouting down or physically attacking someone who is speaking or asked to speak. Silencing is "Shut Up!" Silencing is firing someone for what they say. Silencing is taking away a person's voice. Silencing is repealing the First Amendment in fact, if not in law. Silencing is how we treat lambs.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

It's ALWAYS the lesser evil. The electoral system is terribly flawed. We've needed Ranked Choice Voting for a very long time. The powers that be, including the media, don't want it because they have this game down. As it stands, there's really only one party. And ultimately, no real choice because there is a shadow govt that's been pulling all the levers behind the curtain for the past 75 years or so.

2Reply

AldenJun 30

BArack Obama knows that party too well, regarding Michael Flynn to James Comey on January 5th 2017: "Make sure the RIGHT people are on it!"

Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

Did he mean the LEFT people? Trump is at least more fun to watch because they can't control him as easily as they've been able to handle real professional politicians.

Reply

AldenJun 30

Sad to say, but you are correct.

1Reply

ConchJun 30

You are right, but you go too easy on Biden. (1) Usurious interests rates that are outlawed in the rest of the USA are allowed in Delaware. Credit card debt peonage is a terrible problem for all, but esp. the poor. So Biden has directly contributed to the immiseration of all people who must rely on their credit cards for any kind of credit or cash to tide them over. Including, obviously, blacks. (2) Biden was in the forefront of the trend to for-profit prisons. "As head of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the late 1980s and early ’90s, Biden not only supported the war on drugs that led to mass incarceration, he co-authored many of the laws that led America to have the world’s highest per capita prison population. He pushed The Comprehensive Control Act of 1984, which expanded federal drug trafficking and civil asset forfeiture without proof of guilt, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988 that increased crack cocaine and overall drug offense penalties." Read more here:

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2020/mar/3/bidens-current-prison-reform-stance-counter-his-abysmal-record/

Biden is an effing liar, hypocrite, and little girl fondler. As a champion of black folk , Biden is sick joke. (Never saw video of him fondling a young black girl, though; in the videos I have seen the girls were all white.)

A Trump victory already saw riots virtually "the next day." Remember? So, what's new there? Those who riot are responsible for their behavior. Or for being dupes, if that is what they are. Holding the election of a politician hostage to a threat of violence is political extortion. We are supposed to have a smooth transition of power in this "democracy," remember? Such extortionist threats make me even think of voting for Trump.

Reply

ScottJun 30

Oh, I don't know about that. It will definitely push this zit to a big fat head and maybe even pop it... but I don't really worry about it.

I bet people sat around in the 1930s watching these radical ideologies spring up all over the world were mighty nervous, too. This sure resembles that era. Our masters are orchestrating another big purge.

1Reply

MikeJul 1

There were riots the day after Trump was inaugurated. There were riots before he was inaugurated. There will be riots until somebody stops them.

Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

You're an example of white fragility, If not exactly (but close) how Matt renders DiAngelo's take:

"The concept, as articulated in books like former corporate consultant Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility (Amazon’s #1 seller!) reduces everything, even the smallest and most innocent human interactions, to racial power contests."

Reply

SlitzyJul 2

The Marxists and their ridiculous new word usage. Very amusing, but pathetic and a lot of loser perma victims buy right in and parrot the idiocy. The above poster Mike, doesn't care about your little feelings and uber evolved outrage. And I don't either. Blacks are going to find NORMAL, DECENT people of all races wanting to avoid them. Sucks for decent Black people.

Reply

MikeJul 1

I am 73. Grew up in working class Los Angeles in the 1950's and 60's. Where I lived we had no black people. It was just whites and Mexicans, who called themselves Chicanos. We got along fairly well, a few racially motivated fights between two boys. The word "racism" was unknown. People spoke of somebody being "prejudiced" if they expressed dislike for Mexicans. Again, in my part of LA there were literally no blacks. Most of us had never heard of Watts or Compton or any of the black neighborhoods.

The result of my upbringing is, I have no feeling for black people. Never worked with any black people except a bit in the Army, never had any black friends, never lived around any. So I don't feel any kind of obligation to "repent" for my racism because I don't have any thing to apologize for. I just do not care about the whole concept, and I bet whole lot of white people feel the same. I am voting for Trump, again. If Biden wins the election, we are never going to see the end of the riots and looting.

Reply

Jack Waites10 hr

Is the DiAngelo book perfect no but Matt Taibbi comes of like a fragile white dude. I always find it amazing that the people who push colorblindness the most are the ones that don’t have to deal much with the day to day of racism. Yes that would be you Mr Taibbi. The world in which we exist has been dominated by white supremacy for at least 600 years, I doubt very seriously that it’s going anywhere anytime soon. It is in that world that DiAngelo writes where as you seem to exist in the world of white Libs/Moderates that Dr King was writing to in Letter from the Birmingham Jail. Since you invoked King in the very way she criticized white people of doing maybe you should read some speeches of King post 1966 and you will find that he sounds a lot more like DiAngelo than you would be comfortable with. Let’s look at that word comfortable. It is from your comfortable perch of being a white man that you so easily Pooh Pooh DiAngelo’s idea. Maybe if you lived the life of a Black man in America you wouldn’t think her idea is so crazy.

1Reply

Jen9 hr

To be fair, Matt did write a book on systemic racism against African Americans: 'Hate Inc.' So he's not entirely living in a white man bubble. He's not at all denying system racism. He's just saying D'Angelo's rigid, reductive & constant self-checking approach to addressing it, undermines any attempt at nurturing actual organic white/POC interactions & doesn't do that much to advance integration & equality between white society & people of colour. Perhaps, solving economic inequality across the board might go some way to doing it as well as dealing with racism in social structures (but not in D'Angelos's way). I do think white middle class people are becoming aware of how systemic racism operates. It's a learning period. I do take your point that people often quote the same line from Martin Luther King which de-complexifies what he was talking about on segregation and racism in the 1960s.

2Reply

Quek6 hr

I would have to agree with the premise of what you say. This garbage of white privilege sets up a heads I win, tails you lose argument. I would also argue about systemic racism. It is another no win argument. In our system we have laws that should be changed, asset forfeiture, no knock warrants and many of the drug laws. In the case of Eric Gardner, exactly why do we have a law that forbids the selling of individual cigarettes and shouldn't we have less intrusive laws? But none of this is systemic racism, it affects all people and is over policing.

1Reply

Fred LynchJun 29

Bravest guy in America! Hope to hear more from you when you're released in a year or two from re-education camp!

25Reply

Rich McConville7 hr

This seems like a swift kick to the groin for those of us who strive to look past race when making decisions on how to run our businesses. How much of a role does she play in the decision to accept students into the University? I made the decision to hire a diverse group of people when the decision was mine to make. Am I now racist by her standards? Just one question, where would we be today without those of us who looked beyond race yesterday.

1Reply

KurtJun 29

Just so you know, I’m in corporate HR and I also think that this book is racist garbage. Not all of us are wokerati, hell bent on making everyone’s life miserable. Frankly, I see a big part of my job these days as insulating my people from bile like DeAngelo’s.

There *is* important work that needs to be done about race and identity in corporate America. Anyone who contests that is as clueless as DeAngelo. But so much of what is out there (and held up by the press as a balm for a manufactured wind) is counter-productive at best and toxic at worst. We need more Cornell Wests and fewer Rubin DeAngelos.

24Reply

Milan van EijkJun 29

Yes beautifully said!

2Reply

Chris8 hr

Great article Matt, perfectly articulated the usual hysteria and continued insanity of mainstream Liberal academics. I would go further and say DiAngelo is simply capitalizing on that hysteria and is about as insincere to her movement as it gets..

1Reply

M of the LJun 29

Matt, when are you going on Rogan's podcast?

22Reply

Ben BrownJun 29

He better go on again soon

2Reply

SkepticJun 29

Rubin Report would be good too.

1Reply

Eric BlairJun 29

No no no. Rubin is a total fraud and a Koch bro funded tool. He has no values except lining his pockets and he has no self-respect.

He lets his guests openly disrespect him on his own show. I almost feel sorry for him as he’s obviously a troubled dude. But I could never take him seriously as a political or cultural commentator.

2Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

I'm not a fan of Rubin as I don't find him very smart or engaging, but I am all for this message getting out across ALL long-form platforms. I don't care if Rubin is your definition of a "fraud" or if he is a Koch bro tool (which is a silly statement), every faction of this country needs to hear this message b/c we are in deep trouble.

3Reply

RemJun 29

Rubin was unfairly maligned by these same woke people engaging in the current e-guillotine shenanigans. We need to welcome anyone who's willing to cross the aisle in good faith, Rubin is as inoffensive as they come as far as I'm concerned. The stakes are more than just "he said mean things". These are radicals trying to dramatically restructure our culture and the information we consume. We need to move past that juvenile BS, it's being exploited to avoid shining a spotlight on the corporate oligarchy running our lives (as they drain us for all we're worth until they can move to China's untapped potential with zero human rights or labor laws). Think about how egregious Spygate was and how the media still won't acknowledge their dangerous coverage of the saga. When media is working hand in glove with intelligence you might want to think about things beyond "Rubin is icky". I hope you're a teenager.

2Reply

SkepticJun 29

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. And if you knew my views on economic policy, you might think I'm a Koch tool too. And yet I think we'd also find critically important areas where we agree, because we're both here.

2Reply

TimJun 29

Rubin is alright he’s just not exceptional.

Reply

Joshua ReaserJun 29

right? Love to see him back. Rogan knows Matt is the best.

1Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

I love it when trumpers don't know they're being pnwd.

Reply

Trudy CooperJun 30

huh? I'm confused. Who are you saying is / are "trumpers?"

Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

Now THAT's comedy.

Reply

Tony TaylorJun 29

Mr. Matt Taibbi, you are a great writer and a very prescient thinker in many areas . Yes, TRULY wonderful as I have read many of your articles especially the ones in Rolling Stone as well as seen your interviews on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" that are truly fantastic !! HOWEVER, on this very nuanced specific one you totally dropped the ball !! Yes obviously she hit a "living in denial irritated white male fragility nerve" in you. As you are very irritated living in denial about what she is saying and you are exhibiting exactly the type of behavior she's talking about in her book and in her lectures especially her very famous one on "Vimeo" ( of which you should Google if you have not seen it yet it's about 21 minutes long an easy listening for me a person of color an African-American but difficult for you as a white male as you will be kicking and screaming the whole time she's speaking subconsciously it'll grate on your nerves) Yes , as well google and read the classic essay she wrote for " The Good Men Project" - Why it is so hard for white people to talk about racism.(yes excerpts from her book but she expounds upon it more in this essay) Hence, i as an African American male, understands exactly what Dr. Robin

Diangelo is saying because she has been mentored by a lot of progressive

" woke "Black intellectuals in this area of critical race discourse analysis, whether if you realize it or not that fact.!! So unless you were talking to someone like Ben Carson or Larry Elder or Paris Dennard ,Herman Cain or Candace Owens, you will find that MOST socially politically astute Black people in this country male or female agree with Dr. Robin Diangelo hands down !! Simply because Prof. Diangelo has learned it ALL from "us" !!.So Mr. Matt in essence what you are criticizing about Dr. Diangelo you are in effect directly criticizing with an uninformed racially illiterate opinion that has no authority to go against what we know to be true as Black people because we taught Prof. Robin Diangelo again in "essence" as she has acknowledged that many many times in her videos her books and her lectures. So once again the only types of Blacks who would really be on your side with your critique would be Larry Elder or Paris Dennard Herman Cain or Ben Carson Candace Owens Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and celebrity Stacey Dash yes those types of " House Negroes" or those coveting a spot to take over the anchor chair of Tucker Carlson on Fox News once his sponsors dry up because of his incendiary language. So you are way off base in your" racially illiterate critique" .For I and " we" are used to white men like you having this type of very irritated living in denial getting offended reaction. Yes we hear it all the time it's just that your superb Oscar Wilde-esque command of the english language is superb but it still comes off as from the same primal guttural Colonial Viceroy feeling of an irritated aristocratic British noble man or some base locker room privileged closet Republican frat boy even though on the the surface you appear to be a very Progressive left thinking person or what George Orwell and Karl Marx would call one who has exhibited double consciousness. I suggest you get in contact with Dr. Robin Diangelo and ask her if she would mind to join you on some panel discussion @ some college or University or some venue where these topics of "intersectionality" are discussed . As you are really starting to sound like an " unearned white privilege libertarian male speaking" YES debate Dr Robin Diangelo in a public forum and you will note that the majority of people in the audience especially the students who are very hip to these things who have been mentored and tutored by " WOKE" Black progressives will help you to understand it better. So Mr. Matt you have to reach for a lot more humility then what you are doing now,..REALLY 😎because you are reminding me of a very intellectual conservative Jordan Peterson I.N.C.E.L. frat boy talking right now,... who is definitely experiencing definitely yes white fragility by having your racial worldview challenged which is very uncomfortable for you as a FIRST for you !! . As you are exhibit A,..yes exactly what Dr. Di Angelo's talking about as well as those who have mentored her who are concurring with her as such Black/ African American notables such as Dr. Michelle Alexander/ Dr. Cornel West/ Dr. Joy Degruy/ Ibrahim X Kendi / Verna Myers. Yes along with other white anti-racist notables such as Dr. Tim Wise Dr. Jane Elliott and Peggy McIntosh as well. Anyway please get in touch with her I would love to hear a discussion between the two of you she'll publicly put you on the spot respectfully diplomatically yes very friendly a

but bitingl indicting and directly. As she will elucidate you with a lot of light for you to process later when you are in bed afterwards for a deep inner dialogue within yourself which will be truly liberating and enriching for you. HOWEVER, again it will require you to reach deep within yourself for DEEP humility as most white men are not comfortable doing that especially when matters of complex contextual lengthy historical nuanced race discussions are brought up yes just the opposite of the superficial ones that most white people engage in. As most "racially iliterate clueless white men and women "want to center the whole conversation around their feelings and opinions which are usually binary many superficial oversimplifications very uninformed. As they typically do more talking than listening as well will get very ticked off if someone challenges their "Martin Luther King/ I Have a Dream post-racial colorblind wishful thinking -hoping comfort zone future aspirational world" like you are doing right now.

5Reply

CertexJun 29

Deluded racist drivel. The phrase 'white fragility' is itself racist. (Not even) subtle way to spit on white people.

18Reply

JoeJun 29

I recommend reading the book. It is written to address the statement you just made

2Reply

CertexJun 30

Sorry, but I am not one of these self-flagellating, self-abasing white people who prostrate themselves weeping and screaming for salvation before race huckster authors who despise them, and make a quick buck from spitting on them whilst spreading racial division and tension. I get what you are saying: "If you say you're not racist and fragile...you are!" What a ludicrous circular inescapable 'logic' trap!

Because somebody spits on a race, and a person of that race says the person is a clown, the person must be 'fragile.' I am very, very far from fragile, trust me. And I am also not American (though I did live there for over a decade) and not one of the self-loathing white middle-class English (cos they're just as bad, now, having imported the psychotic polysyllabic idiocy from America) and American idiots you can beat over the head with this derisive, divisive drivel. Sorry to burst your bubble. ;)

5Reply

JoeJun 30

You seem to be projecting your own view of what it means to be mindful of racism. You equate reading and thinking about racial injustice with being a self-loathing virtue signaling sheep. You also seem to view racism as a series of individual violations, this is where the term fragile comes from. Fragility in the sense that we don't see ourselves as racist individuals and therefore get defensive when it is brought up. That’s why I said the book was written for this type of comment, it provides a different perspective

3Reply

BBJul 1

Dude, me thinks you protest too much. "Far from fragile" means you can have empathy for another race, engage in critical inquiry about racism and still be confident in your own racial identity -- without having to insult others as "self-abasing." You sure seem defensive for someone who is "far from fragile."

1Reply

ToddJun 29

TLDR version: I am a racist black man who spouts pseudo-intellectual claptrap in an existential cry of victimhood.

10Reply

M of the LJun 30

You're appealing to the 'unconscious' and the psychology of Matt Taibbi.

Since when did anti-racist folks become experts in Freudian psychoanalysis?

You can take the path of reason or the path of armchair psychology, here. One option you have is to not address a person's argument, and try to address their psychology. It feels like a much easier thing to do, especially as you're not sitting with Matt in an office but repeating something you read someplace about "white men" that can neither be proven nor disproven.

Religious thinking, indeed!

4Reply

ConchJun 30

You need an editor.

2Reply

TMCJun 30

Either that or i need to lean to use spell check with the grammar checker turned on. Guess i need to check my white privilege of thinking i know who to check my own grammar and spelling when posting inane responses to inane comments.

Reply

TMCJun 30

Yep, i know i'm excited to be educated by someone who has been "mentored" by "'woke' black intellectuals." I guess the conservative Black people you mention (Dr. Ben Carson, Herman Cain, Candace Owens), the issues isn't their intellectual prowess, its their "wokeness." But it sounds to me like DiAngelo is culturally appropriating the black experience to profit from it.

2Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

Do you capitalize white in mid-sentence like you do black, when describing them by race? If not, you're a racist.

Reply

TMCJun 30

My bad - I shall strive earnestly in future to appropriately capitalize when referring to a race so as not be be accused of being a racist by not properly capitalizing in mid-sentence (although I've been reliably informed that "white" isn't really a race and since i'm white (not my fault, just born that way), i don't really belong to a "race" so i'm thinking maybe I'm the equivalent of gender neutral, i.e. race neutral, so i can race select just like i can gender select, and so avoid being a racist and be able to accuse someone/anyone of being racist towards me if it will benefit me to

do so.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

Well, just to clarify, you may be unaware that AP came out with some lame rationale for a style change. This influential racist aggregator of biased info has decided that black should be capitalized when referring to race. I think this is because the sensitive racists at AP think that will help even things up, kinda like Affirmative Action, a perfect example of institutionalized racism.

Reply

Super GJul 1

DiAngelo talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. She is a professor at University of Washington where only 2.1% of the professors are black as of 2019.

Reply

Patrick CapriolaJul 1

Hi, Tony can you please share some of the peer-reviewed statistically significant studies that support your position?

Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

Which African nation do you come from? How long have you lived in America? How old were you when you came to America?

Reply

CertexJun 30

Who is that aimed at?

Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

Tony, the African-American. Why is that puzzling?

Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 30

Because you didn't hit the reply button for Tony. It looks like you're replying to Matt.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

Incorrect.

Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 30

Really?

Well that's what it looks like to me and apparently to Certex too.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

W.B., I don't know what your or Certex's problem is. The comment is CLEARLY directed to Tony. So get some new glasses or something and try to not be an idiot. Sheesh!

Reply

CertexJun 30

As most "racially iliterate clueless white men and women "want to center the whole conversation around their feelings and opinions which are usually binary many superficial oversimplifications very uninformed. '

The sneering, condescending racism implicit in this windy, preaching post is utterly incredible! "White boy, never question a huckster white woman peddling self-loathing, self-flagellating racist claptrap...or you're FRAGILE!"

Reply

DanielJun 29

Thanks Matt, I know it's probably uncomfortable to take a stand on this stuff, but I'm glad somebody is doing it. What's so objectionable about this kind of identitarian world view is not just that it doesn't make a lot of sense, but that it may be actively hurting many of the progressive causes we've all spent a lot of time working towards. I'm glad there's someone with your level of commitment and credibility paying attention.

20Reply

Art EcksteinJun 29

I’ve sent this splendid essay on to ten friends.

19Reply

Dale FitzgeraldJun 29

Me too. I posted several paragraphs on Facebook. Brilliant review.

4Reply

JohnJun 29

Thank you Matt. The book is garbage. Its also an incredibly destructive enterprise especially for African Americans. While white "progressives" are gleefully canceling each other out, no one is actually suggesting any real policy changes that will even the playing field for African Americans. We could be discussing all sorts of actual governmental policies that would help but that might god forbid actually fix the problem. Also from what I can tell making all white people either villains or admitted villains isn't exactly producing a lot of warm and fuzzy feelings either. Many white people I know have privately told me that they plan to avoid any interaction with people of color because they are afraid they may say or do the wrong thing. This is really sad to me. Half my clients are African American and from what I can tell they aren't much different then my white clients. They want to win their cases, make money and take care of their loved ones. But apparently saying we are more the same then different is now racist. Very depressing.

18Reply

QuietlikeJun 29

Matt, I've commented before, and been a huge fan of your work since the "Vampire Squid" days, but this is a real, fearless, and desperately needed splash of reason on this awful crap.

I'm married to a non-white woman, and father to two mixed race kids. I grew up in a predominantly black county, attending mostly black schools for K-12. This book, and the academics behind it, are a cancer on the planet. Kids are naturally born to see race the same way they see hair color. As one of two white kids on my school bus, I remember those innocent years.

This article pushed me to becoming a paid subscriber as of 10 minutes ago.

My brother is being forced to read White Fragility at his job (he's only dated one white woman in his entire life, but hey, he's totally a bigot, right?) and then attend meetings after each chapter where it is discussed with the Diversity and Inclusion Office members that his company foolishly hired straight from college several years ago. His descriptions are incredibly reminiscent of Maoism. I shared this article with him, and now he doesn't feel so alone.

If you want to silence people and cow them into pretending to agree with ideas, you can threaten them with prison or torture (see Mao and Stalin) or you can threaten to fire them in the midst of the worst economic contraction in two generation's lifetimes (see the HR departments of corporate America.)

If Trump wins in November, this idiotic book and the pseudo-religion behind it will be the reason why.

17Reply

CharlesJun 29

Great Article. Our battles are not between left and right, but liberals and illiberals.

18Reply

Dale FitzgeraldJun 29

Absolutely. I would place myself “far right” since I’m a Misean Libertarian, but I couldn’t agree more with Taibbi on 90% of his articles. He’s a shining light in the darkness. Liberty requires the ability to speak freely.

16Reply

SkepticJun 29

I'm a fairly straight-line conservative at this point, but I also agree with about 90 percent of what Matt is writing, because he gets to the core of what defines America, what we all need to agree on and fight for. I will gratefully join with socialists to fight, as long as we agree on this: free speech, due process, equal justice under law.

Those are on the line.

13Reply

SkepticJun 29

This.

3Reply

J JVSJun 29

double this

1Reply

EricJun 29

Much needed pushback against cultural totalitarianism, anti-intellectualism, and po-mo claptrap.

16Reply

jocon307Jun 29

Ok, just subscribed. Not only because Matt Taibbi said this may be the worst book ever written but because the comments are so great. I have been feeling like I am losing my mind, even while realizing that is what “they” want me to feel. This piece and (most of) the responses has been a breath of sanity.

14Reply

jharper22 hr

Seems like Matt entirely missed the points raised in this book. Did he even read it? For a guy who is normally pretty incisive and thoughtful, his unwarranted and ill-tempered comments about this book suggest he may be a perfect example of what DiAngelo is discussing. His comments contain no thoughtful alternate discussion points, rather he appears to have intended to write an attack article. The tone of his comments seem to reek of white ignorance, white self importance, and also have a healthy dose of misogyny thrown in. Take a breath, read the article with your eyes truly open and you may realize the fragility inside of all of us.

Reply

Caek Islove6 hr

Race is a social construct. There's no such thing as "white people".

Reply

jvmack18 hr

hey all you white-ish guys out here, all you macho putdown warriors saying this white fragility shit is commie scam porn why don't u all just sit down & listen. so what are you all afraid of shutting up for. the best you assholes can do is repeat : shut up & learn some new insults. go gas until ur blue in ur bluballfaces i've been blessed over the years & perhaps you white macho putdown guys r on yer way out. please sit down and listen: it won't make you disappear & you might even have fun

Reply

Caek Islove6 hr

This is the kind of person who wants to "educate" us, lol

Reply

mbeakenJun 29

Wow. I think Taibbi could have stepped back, taken a few breaths, and written a much more sound critique of this book. While I do believe “White Fragility” has issues (i.e. black people can’t be racist?? This “powerless defense” basically puts black people in the position of being the constant victim and ignores facts like blacks in power have and do support racist policies and enact racialized power. Ibram Kendi has a whole chapter- in another NYT best seller- about how this is bullshit). I find it telling that Taibbi chose the ONE book by a white author out of TEN books about race on the NYT best-seller list to shit all over and basically “prove” that society has gone too far on this whole “reaction to decades of racism” thing. Not only is this book the weakest of the list, but I’m sure Taibbi feels better about himself attacking a white author as opposed to an author of color (and is there some irony there given his part of his point is that white people have become low hanging fruit that everyone loves to shit on?). Here are some critiques of Taibbi’s main points:

DiAngelo is “selling Hitlerian Race Theory”. Obviously the choice to not expound further on this point was intentional, because it has no merit. Hitler believed in a clear biological basis of race and of the clear superiority of the “Aryan” race (yet another example showing race is a political construct- and that DOESN’T MEAN THERE IS NO GENETIC BASIS FOR CHARACTERISTICS THAT WE USE TO DEFINE RACE, IT MEANS THAT HISTORICALLY SOCIETIES HAVE PICKED DIFFERENT PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS TO CREATE RACIAL HIERARCHIES AND OPPRESS “INFERIOR” GROUPS FOR THEIR POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFIT. Sorry, just saw multiple commenters decry the belief that race is a socially and politically constructed topic- just look at racial categories in different countries!! White is not a commonly identified race basically outside of the United States and Australia! Ask yourself what the reason for that is!). HItler codified these beliefs in the Nuremberg Laws, Madagascar Plan, and of course eventually led to the mass extermination of millions of people. I thought Taibbi was an outspoken critic of the “everyone else is Hitler” trope. This sentence from him was particularly disappointing.

DiAngelo “reduces everything...to racial power contests”. Really. EVERYTHING?. Diangelo says no such thing. She just says white people are taught “not to think about whiteness” and that this is damaging when clearly there is a huge connection between race and power in this country and a CLEAR history of white supremacy. I see people reacting on here with “IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT RACE”. To me this is the equivalent of an “all lives matter” response to “black lives matter”. Just because someone is saying we have a problem with racism in this country from its founding, does not mean they are saying everything is all about race all the time. And if you are denying that racism and power are inextricably linked (and still are...and rooted in policy) then you and I are operating on a different set of facts. Would we really argue against DiAngelo and say it’s possible to live a race-free life in America right now? I would hope anyone would see how obviously laughable that idea is.

DiAngelo says “you have no identity apart from your participation in white supremacy”. Um, no she doesn’t. Taibbi says this. She absolutely talks about the myriad identities “white” people have and goes into detail about how white people often misinterpret critiques of the state of “whiteness” in the US and the calling out of “white privilege” to mean that other facets of their identity don’t matter or how they may have been otherwise oppressed (e.g. by policies that exploit the poor) don’t matter, and that this is NOT TRUE. She addresses this explicitly and uses it as an example of how white people are often not capable of sustaining a discussion about racism without making “but what about” statements and grand generalizations of her point. Taibbi’s critique is literally an example of this type of reaction.

Taibbi’s critique of Diangelo’s use of King’s speech is also a low point. Taibbi seems to think that Diangelo is critiquing King’s words and aspirations of being “colorblind”. That is pure bullshit and absolutely not what she says. Her point is that this “colorblind” future may be possible, but that is NOT where we are at currently, and that the general public has basically castrated King, ignored all his radical ideas, and celebrated him repeatedly without doing any of the hard work of dismantling policies that sustain racial and economic inequalities. I’m not sure how Taibbi misunderstood this section, but he is way smarter than I am, which leads me to believe maybe he is intentionally misrepresenting DiAngelo’s point to pander to his readers, which is, again, disappointing.

Taibbi aslo seems offended that DiAngelo pointed out how Jackie Robinson (like King) is another example of how we often “celebrate” black history while sweeping under the rug the state sanctioned racial terrorism, murder, and oppression that went along with it. I’m glad Taibbi is so knowledgeable about this history of racism in baseball. I would assume the general public is not as knowledgeable, and I guarantee you (I’m a public school teacher and product of public schooling) that Taibbi’s iteration is not the way the Jackie Robinson story has been taught.

Taibbi’s critique of the term “antiracism” again was disappointing. Anti-racist work has literally been around for thousands of years, and many in the US see it as an extension of the abolitionist movement. Both DiAngelo and Kendi (just choosing these two since they are most popular at the moment) see everyone, not perpetually banished into groups of oppressors/oppressed, but on a continuum of racist and antiracist action at any given moment (Kendi extends this to people of all “races”, whereas DiAngelo makes the distinction that POC can be prejudiced but not racist due to a current power imbalance, which I and many others disagree with). Antiracist thoughts and actions would be those that promote racial equity. Racist thoughts/policies would be those that seek to continue or create racial inequity (i.e. how school boundaries are drawn, sentencing policies, the locations of polling places, voter ID laws, etc, etc, etc). Anti-racism is “pessimistic about race relations”, Taibbi laments? Just look at any set of facts about the share of wealth and power black people have in this country, and tell me they don’t have a reason to be “pessimistic”.

Overall, I think a lot of Taibbi’s critiques of the “movement” are valid, and it is literally nauseating to see the performative “allyship” of politicians and giant corporations while they meanwhile make no substantive movement towards antiracist laws and policies. I also agree that “liberal” institutions have gone too far in their thought-policing and the implications of that are frankly terrifying. HOWEVER, misrepresenting DiAngelo’s arguments and mocking anyone claiming to do antiracist work is a shitty way to go about making this critique. Taibbi does include some conciliatory statements that, sure, racism is still a problem, but as you can tell from the comments the overall effect (due to the emphasis of this article) are now a bunch of, dare I say it, white men (because yes, you are a man who is white), basically saying “YES. THANK YOU TAIBBI FOR BEING SO BRAVE AND SAYING ANTIRACISM IS BULLSHIT. I KNEW IT ALL ALONG THAT THIS WHOLE DECADES OF RACIAL TERRORISM AND OPPRESSION THING WAS OVERBLOWN. IT’S ALL ABOUT ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND THE OLIGARCHY ANYWAY.” Again, as literally almost EVERYONE IS SAYING (but not according to Taibbi): It’s about BOTH. Sad that Taibbi is aligned with Fox News in this overblown analysis (they think EVERYTHING is about RACE!) and mockery of people fighting the very real racial inequities that exist in this country.

12Reply

ConchJun 30

"White is not a commonly identified race basically outside of the United States and Australia! "

Erm, it seems to be BLM blacks and their allies who obsess on "white" being a category even to the extent of u.c. the word. According to BLM there is literally just white and black. I find it offensive, personally, to be reduced as an individusl to a skin-color designation. It is racist.

As for why Taibbi chose to comment on ths book, I cannot speak for him. But my impression from his lede is that this is now the most-talked-about book on the subject, no. 1 on the best-seller list, etc. That is a very good reason for discussing this book and not some other. As a freelance journalist Taibbi gets to choose his subject matter. It is absurd for a commenter---a guest---at Taibbi's blog, to challenge him as to why he chose to write on his chosen subject. If the commenter wants to have a review of another book, let him or her write it.

As for the comment that Taibbi is "aligned with Fox News," that is pure BS facile ad homming. Meaningless. Malcolm X: "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it."

I watched the video of what occurred at Evergreen College and I saw DiAngelo's dangerous Kafkatrapping harangue and yes, someone has to call her---and the media who are lionizing her---out. Thanks, Matt.

4Reply

mbeakenJun 30

It kind of sounds like you are saying the concept of a white racial identity was created by BLM, but I’ll assume I misread your point. If you research the history of the use of the term “white”, it always was connected to some kind of privilege of power in this country. It used to be we would refer to people of the “German race” or “Italian race” when we had more newly arrived (and segregated) immigrant communities in this country. The first usage of the word white were in laws and policies determining things like immigration, naturalization, interracial marriage, who could own property, who could vote, etc, etc., always designating “white people” as the beneficiaries of power/law/policy. That is why it is problematic to say you have “white pride”. It is a race label constructed with the purpose of concentrating power and wealth in the hands of a certain population (white rich men) and justify exploiting the labor of black and brown people through slavery, migrant labor, and then slavery through mass incarceration. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your European heritage, though. And why, might you ask, is it okay for black people to be “proud” since that also was a category created for these purposes? Because they were kidnapped, raped, and enslaved and completely divorced from their culture of origin. Being “black” is the identity that was forced upon them, so being proud is an act of resistance and empowerment. I think you are also misinterpreting someone saying something like, as DiAngelo does, that because we are a country founded upon racial hierarchy and oppression, and you are perceived by larger society as “white” and often treated by others based on your racial identification, that there is no way you are not affected in some way by your racial identity in this country. That is NOT saying that is “all you are” or that we are not all “individuals”. I take your point that Taibbi choosing this book to critique was fair game, but I think my problem was that this was not just a book critique, but he chose this book and generalized it as a critique of Antiracism work in general, and of the cultural momentum in discussing the very complex, very real problem of racism we have in this country (and again that is all tangled up in economic inequities as well and it doesn’t deny that the systems of oppression are multifaceted). Also a fair point about Fox...I’ve just been disappointed lately of the stance that Saagar Enjeti and now Taibbi (who I usually agree with wholeheartedly) have taken up concerning the recent protests against systemic racism and police violence, which just happens to be aligned with Fox pundit opinions (although more Enjeti than Taibbi), which DO tend to be full of white supremacist “law and order” “protestor thugs” type signalling. It just seemed to me that Taibbi may have been emotionally triggered by this book, and his usual quality of analysis was off, perhaps because of that? I was looking forward to his criticism actually as I just finished reading White Fragility and have quite a few criticisms myself, but I really felt like he misread or misrepresented a lot of DiAngelo’s arguments so felt the need to respond to that. As I said though the critique of tokenism, performative gestures by politicians and corporations is spot on, as usual.

5Reply

ConchJun 30

" It is a race label constructed with the purpose of concentrating power and wealth in the hands of a certain population (white rich men) and justify exploiting the labor of black and brown people through slavery, migrant labor, and then slavery through mass incarceration."

Yah. Exactly.

So my point is, why does BLM perpetuate this? Like, here is a term that is the complement of the n-word, and I still have to have it slung around my neck by BLM? They are not black, they are different colors. I am not white, I am kind of pink, with some age spots. Let's move on . (BTW this site is extremely slow--difficult to type at all. So, keeping it brief.)

Reply

mbeakenJun 30

Because it is still part of our reality as a society. I agree I hope one day we can move beyond racial hierarchies, but we are definitely not there yet so it needs to be identified in order to be dismantled. And yes this website is so slow! Haha, driving me nuts.

Reply

ConchJul 2

Yah.

Wasn't it Obama who said we should just "move on" after the nightmare of the Bush years and crimes? Where is "Move On " Obama when we need him? Hah.

Reply

theduke89Jun 30

". . . and ignores facts like blacks in power have and do support racist policies and enact racialized power."

Which blacks do this? Names, please. For that matter, which whites do this?

1Reply

mbeakenJun 30

I mean, off the top of my head, Clarence Thomas, Candace Owens, Bill Cosby, Condoleezza Rice, Kamala Harris...Just look at anyone (of any “race) who supports racist policies- aka policies that increase racial inequity in this country. For example, sentencing policies that disproportionately affect POC, policies that continue the segregation of our schools (which has gone back down to 1960s levels), policies that don’t increase the minimum wage and access to healthcare (all of which disproportionately affects POC), people who are against policies that seek to repair the damage to families impacted by predatory lending practices, mortgage policies, redlining, people who are for voter-ID laws and gerrymandering to disenfranchise black and brown voters, etc. And you know you else benefits from these policy changes? Poor white people! You know who doesn’t benefit? Wealthy people in power...and that is why I mentioned Kendi’s point that black people in positions of power are also able to support or enact racist laws and policies. However, this power is still very limited in comparison to whites as power is still held by and large by white people in this country (e.g. US Congress: 90% white, Governors: 96% white, All presidents/VPs: 100% white, Fortune 500 company CEOs: 95% white, Top 10 richest people: 100% white, Millionaires in US: 76% white, only 6 black billionaires out of 615 in the US, etc, etc).

2Reply

BBJun 30

Thanks for the great analysis, mbeaken -- much better than my sorry ass attempts at push back on Taibbi's critique. I also have some issues with DiAngelo's approach, but I do wonder if you give Matt's accusation of DiAngelo being a corporate goon too much credit. I don't get the impression that she's at all interested is superficial PR stunts by companies to look more woke. But I'd love to see her respond in real time to Matt's critiques in filmed exchange.

1Reply

mbeakenJul 1

Yes! I did have an issue with that as well actually. As far as I can tell she is a Professor and Author- It’s not like she has a consulting/training company she is making a plug for. I’m sure she is paid for speaking engagements, but so would be any author/public figure (Taibbi included)!

Reply

Evan RentschlerJul 1

Yes, thanks for writing the exhaustive riposte I simply don’t have the patience for.

It’s an interesting point about elite black mistreatment of blacks, which has been going on for centuries. Coates’ take on Cosby seems to speak of his “pull up your pants/stop giving your kids weird names” ranting is more ideological (conservative?). Ditto most of the list.

Harris is more interesting as an ostensible leftist. I think that opens the door to some necessary but uncomfortable conversations about the part which black leaders played in mass incarceraction. Racist? Worth a thought...

1Reply

mbeakenJul 1

Also, thank YOU for your previous comments- clearly we have the minority opinion on this site. Feeling a little disillusioned with Taibbi at the moment, especially after reading so many of his follower’s comments. Also this is part of a “larger series”?? Maybe there will be some redemption after this mess of an article, but I’m feeling pessimistic about that.

Reply

Evan RentschlerJul 2

Most of the responses here are fairly predictable. I expect that, at a minimum, Matt would approach this subject with more trepidation and humility than he showed, knowing the likely reception.

I assume he’s at least scanning the comments as he’s responded to a couple. Much of what’s being posted should give him pause. It reminds me of similar stumbles by Jonathon Haidt as he wrestles with campus illiberalism. Far too much “Yeah racism, but...” You really, really have to demonstrate an understanding of racism before you can propose that sort of formulation, and Haidt lost me with that leap as Matt does.

I was reading the intro to Hate, Inc. yesterday: “There’s a lesson in this for modern journalists who’ve been raised to eschew talking in favor of searching for links (a type of “research” in which you’re really just confirming a point you’ve already decided to make). “ That encapsulates my concern beautifully, as he’s using WF to exemplify and confirm his consternation at leftist illiberalism.

1Reply

mbeakenJul 1

I think someone could definitely make a case that Bill Cosby’s ideas could be described as cultural racism (contributed to a cultural hierarchy among racial groups), and I’ve heard him described as an “assimilationist” before, but I’d have to think more about that one. Harris, again I would not call her (or almost anyone) A racist, but policies she supported as a prosecutor definitely sustained if not increased racial inequities.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

So let’s try some facts.

“The police kill far more whites (see the cases of Justine Damond and Tony Timpa) than blacks. Of course, whites don't riot (these days). I tried Google with "justine damond" and "police killing" and got 2,420 hits. By contrast, "george floyd" with "police killing" got 2.3 million hits. "tony timpa" with "police killing" got 2,750 hits. Some lives are more important than others.”

And

“Using data from Houston, Texas – where we have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified –we find, after controlling for suspect demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics.”

And

In 2018, New York State spent $24,040 per-student on public education. Utah spent $7,628. But don’t worry, students in Utah do better than kids in New York State.

Reply

mbeakenJul 1

You need to look at relative (not absolute) numbers, which do show that Black people have a higher risk of being shot than police. https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=7ef012a819ec06de5d8d3d61789e69d46cac21f5-1593541921-0-ASLKnHG3pgnndIHBKmxDgFU06k5kFFobInv8g-_Oy8cqNHP91xd1IguVYThPc6P5lBPLp4k06PxT__ggph0vGXyCZQQvcedk1rFEGQABrWLOQoSiARyYlXWpFaAHI_-PblG-81xObHPrt37iua12IYveW1q8fg61JxjTAAzKyiz95cqsasbdE0iSRl0d-Mtjrb9bvUgS5t4owmRImra-vBv6S-1N8oVIteZREm-pbSkcEdT1WnJxzYJ1DyKb-e6Y3gc82GAHH7K9hqFkQ4kwJBQIL3uxzZ_se2uG_5z0L9Xk . I’m not sure the point you are making with public ed...but I you are definitely cherry picking your facts https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-02-26/white-students-get-more-k-12-funding-than-students-of-color-report

Reply

Donald TwainJun 29

Everyone defending (& criticizing) DiAngelo needs to head over to the Blocked and Reported podcast and listen to Katie's interview with a woman who went through a year (!!!) of DiAngelo's "diversity training." Very enlightening. There's a case for a class-action lawsuit if I've ever heard one.

Awesome as usual, Matt!

12Reply

deletedJun 29

deleted

SkepticJun 29

Respectfully, I think you missed the point. You don't need to be called out, and you don't need any reading list (other than what you like to read).

During our short time on this planet, we need to show love, respect, and kindness to all others around us as best we can, as they do for us. That's it. Anything else, someone is trying to sell you something, and probably something destructive or dangerous.

14Reply

Tessa E. SheehanJun 29

You made “reading list” divisive.

Reply

SkepticJun 29

With respect, I may be wrong, I wouldn't presume to read your mind. But when you mention reading lists together with a need to be "called out," you seem to be buying into the "struggle sessions" and reeducation that some folks want to sell.

And you seemed to suggest that DiAngelo was unreliable because she's white. That's not it. She's unreliable because she's selling division and genetic guilt. Some Black authors sell that too, and they're equally wrong.

6Reply

Tessa E. SheehanJun 29

You are totally off course and insulting ...

my point was that I am a white woman being told / “called out”, by white women to live by this book - the point Matt is making, that this book has become the cultural “go to” as assholes make it their job to call out “perceived” racism like a bible thumper shouts out fake quotes from the bible, much the way you seem to have taken it upon yourself to call out “perceived” ignorance .... practice what you preach and don’t assume you are smarter than anyone or more versed on kindness and empathy as you display your arrogance while simultaneously, creating division.

Further / of course we are all supposed to be kind but real eradication of racism will not fully evolve until we become a social democracy - when your white privilege and my white privilege are no longer negotiating tools to obtain better housing, waged, healthcare.

As for “reading list” - what a fucking stupid argument to pick, out of all that.

Who are you?

You must not be an avid reader ... just an avid asshole with a high opinion of his own opinion and perspective.

Tell Matt he should delete his “to read” list cause intellectuals like yourself just need to be kind.

Reply

SkepticJun 29

Yikes. Peace to you.

1Reply

CertexJun 29

Exactly, Skeptic. Just don't be a prick to other people, no matter what their colour, and you're fine. Book reading is not required for common civility.

1Reply

M of the LJun 29

There's no need for a reading list. Do not let an agenda set by others, in some sudden moment, to cause you to change what you would normally do. The problem isn't just that DiAngelo presents a reading list (and her book / workbooks), the problem is that people are presenting lists in the first place.

Intelligent, motivated, curious people who read don't need Reading Lists if they seek to be independent thinkers. Repeat after me. No. More. Lists.

3Reply

CertexJun 29

If she repeats that after you, is she being an independent thinker? (Sorry, just humourously shitstirring, you're right)

3Reply

Aaron KoralJun 29

Terrific essay Matt - thank you.

14Reply

Bill McNealJun 29

Keep this up Matt, and you won't be invited to any of those fancy cocktail parties. Once again, excellent piece.

14Reply

JMS19 hr

I laughed out loud when I got to Taibbi's line that "DiAngelo writes like a person who was put in timeout as a child for speaking clearly". DiAngelo is barely comprehensible in her lectures, too. She uses a lot of nonsensical, pressured language and gives no specific examples or anecdotes to illustrate her points (other than the one about "Deborah's hair" - maybe it's the only example she has?). Her lectures are just more social "science" gobbledygook. Full disclosure: I have not read DiAngelo's book, but I have listened to two of her lectures online. I was prompted to learn more about her ideas after a faculty meeting at my university, where mostly white teachers were berating themselves for not being woke enough about the issues facing our Black students. I'm not saying DiAngelo doesn't make some important points, but beats me how her long-winded, confusing arguments are gonna solve the problems of redlining, wealth disparity, crappy schools, police brutality and the other issues those of us living in the real world would like to address. Enough with the nonsense, and thank you Matt Taibbi for being brave enough to say so.

2Reply

Art EcksteinJun 29

DiAngelo is positing that there is no essential difference between the white civil rights workers killed by the Klan and members of the Klan who killed them. Think about that.

11Reply

Evan RentschlerJun 29

Only if you think racism comes in one size and shape.

Reply

Art EcksteinJun 29

She does. That’s the point. She’s a total essentialist.

5Reply

jbmoore61Jun 29

This was just superb! The humor and satire had me laughing out loud. The world has always been mad, but there was always a thin veil of legitimacy covering the madness. Now, the veil is ripped away and we see the beauty and the horror of that madness. What passes for the current intellectual status quo in the humanities and race relations in academia paired with the shallowness of corporate media add up to a teaspoonful of cyanide vapor aimed at the audience member who takes a whiff. I am surprised the Joker wasn’t mentioned as an inspiration in her book. We certainly live in interesting times! Thanks, Matt!

John

13Reply

SherryJun 29

I have no intentions of reading this crap, and I would tell any employer who tried to make me to shove it.

10Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

I read it of my own volition. (I wanted to approach it with an open mind). Despite my misgivings about putting even a measly few dollars in DiAngelo's over-flowing coffers, I bought the book a few weeks ago.and no one even "made" me do it. I just wanted to understand where we are heading. The book is BS as Matt describes and more. My advice: Don't do what I did - don't waste your time and money on this drivel. But, I must conclude that where we are heading is frightening and as long as corporate America is onboard (whatever their motives) we are fucked!

12Reply

M of the LJun 29

I agree with the general sentiment of reading things just to know what the population reads politically / factually.

The fear is, if I buy this book to read it, I may have to increase my drinking frequency to get through it in one piece.

5Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

Definitely, My read included a bottle of wine.

2Reply

Joshua ReaserJun 29

Thanks for the advice... I won't! and yeah... corporate America has one goal: fuck anything that moves.

1Reply

Joshua ReaserJun 29

facts

Reply

Greg IrwinJun 29

Don't let up. You and like minded writers, intellectuals, leaders will eventually form a unified voice. At present, many people are raising red flags but I can't help but feel the movement is still too fragmented. Keep on pushing!!!

12Reply

Bigfoot9p6Jun 29

What happened to Taibbi? How does one abandon their morality in order to jump onboard a sinking ship? Another trumpster rat circling the drain.

Reply

Art EcksteinJun 30

The Stalinist nature of the rhetoric employed here by Bigfoot (Taibbi is a “Trmpster rat”) confirms everything Taibbi says about such people.

9Reply

MikeJul 2

Taibbi's book "Insane Clown President: Dispatches from the American Circus

by Matt Taibbi"

Reply

C WardJun 30

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't synonyms for black, and dark ... and white and light... the same in every language? And, er, when Notre Dame was built, Africans, Aztecs, and Incas had not yet discovered that coconuts roll down hill..... [the wheel?]

I'm sick of pretending that there are no differences between races ... because there are. WE - White Western populations built Western Civilization, when Comanches and Iriquois were entertaining their children with how long their neighbors could live with their entrails stretched out across their camp. Mom was left behind when dad died... and her kids took even her beads as the tribe left her to the crows and coyotes. [see Michener and other historians before they are erased for telling the truth of these savages.]

And that's just a short critique on our oh so "NOBLE" indigenous - ... don't get me started on Mayans, Africans, Eskimos and Australian Aboriginals.

So no apologies from this white lady.... I am willing to give anyone a break and a chance, but now that [r] selected 3rd world black and brown populations are coming for me and mine? ...

screw em .... let em figure out how dig their own wells... or the error of eating seed corn and mixing feces with drinking water.

As to American blacks - how about a candid conversation on copulating at 12, and children absent a father? off limits? Well, it should be the cornerstone of EVERY conversation about life prospects for a culture that thinks monogamous heterosexual marriage and math is white racism.

Reply

MascotJun 30

"I'm sick of pretending that there are no differences between races ... because there are. WE - White Western populations built Western Civilization, when Comanches and Iriquois were entertaining their children with how long their neighbors could live with their entrails stretched out across their camp..."

Europeans in that era were doing much the same thing. And the details were left out of most history books until very recently, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged%2C_drawn_and_quartered

You could read Hellfire Nation by James A. Morone (2004), about how the 17th century residents of the Massachusetts Bay Colony dealt with the native tribes who got in their way.

Or you could read The Fatal Shore by Robert Hughes, a 1988 history of the settling of Australia as a penal colony that begins with some vivid descriptions of various English criminal punishment practices in the 18th and 19th centuries, such as the details of the process and results of being flogged with a cat'o'nine tails.

Or you might consider reading about Hernando de Soto's adventures in the New World in David Ewing Duncan's biography, from 1995.

A large part of history is a ghastly chronicle of human inhumanity, torture, rapine, murder and p;lunder, wherever you go. Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America...and how routine it all got to be, in some times and places.

4Reply

ConchJun 30

"A large part of history is a ghastly chronicle of human inhumanity, torture, rapine, murder and p;lunder, wherever you go. Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America...and how routine it all got to be, in some times and places. " Yep, sure thing. And don't forget the slavery every where. The United States of America was the first nation to abolish slavery. Imperfectly, but, yes, as a result of the American Revolution, first steps to abolish slavery were undertaken. Tired of the distortion of history, and of what the USA stands for. I am not a MAGA patriot by any means. But let's just tell the truth.

Reply

James W DunlapJun 30

I agree with most of what you say, but it is not true that "The United States of America was the first nation to abolish slavery". The USA was in the middle. The British French and Dutch Empires and most of the the Americas preceded it. Brazil (1888) China (1910), and most of the Muslim world was later.

Slavery was abolished in (this list omits some smaller places):

1590 in Japan (and feudalism was abolished in 1871)

1723 in Russia (and feudalism was abolished in 1861)

1822 in "Spanish Haiti" (now the Dominican Republic) and Chile

1823 in Mexico (not fully enforced until the late 1820s)

1830 in Uruguay and Bolivia

1832 in Greece

1834 in the British Empire (except British India) by the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act

1843 in British India (i.e. parts of India under British East India Company control)

1846 in Tunisia

1847 in the French empire

1851 in Ecuador

1852 in Argentina

1853 in Peru and Venezuela

1862 in the Dutch empire

1863 US Emancipation Proclamation: applicable only to Confederate states which the US did not then control), not to Tennessee (which the Union had re-taken) or the Union slave states (Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky)

1865 in the USA (13th Amendment to the Constitution)

Most of the rest of the world was later; notable examples:

1886: Cuba

1888: Brazil

1895: Egypt

1905: Korea (but survives in practice until 1930)

1910: China

1922: Morocco

1923: Afghanistan

1924: Iraq, Turkey

1952: Qatar

1962: Saudi Arabia, North Yemen

1967: South Yemen

1970: Oman

1981: Mauritania

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom

1Reply

ConchJun 30

I don't think you have it right, re Britain. There is a difference between abolishing the slave TRADE and abolishing slavery. Wiki: "In 1807, Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which outlawed the international slave trade, but not slavery itself." Read the rest of the entry. In the USA, Vermont was the first state and the first political entity to make slavery illegal. "In 1780, Pennsylvania became the first state to abolish slavery when it adopted a statute that provided for the freedom of every slave born after its enactment (once that individual reached the age of majority). Massachusetts was the first to abolish slavery outright, doing so by judicial decree in 1783." This was a first, according to the historian James Oakes of NYU---not his quote, but he said the same thing in a video interview in which he expressed his views on the 1619 program. See https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/18/oake-n18.html

Reply

James W DunlapJun 30

It is also of course true that northern states passed laws for the abolition of slavery before the United States abolished it in 1865: from 1780 (Pennsylvania) to 1804 (New Jersey), but that was not what was under discussion.

As you say, Pennsylvania's act was for gradual abolition of slavery. The last slaves in Pennsylvania were freed in 1847. Most of the northern states' legislation was similar. I believe you are right that Massachusetts' outright abolition 1783 was the first in the US, and certainly one of the first in the world. But it took another 82 years, culminating in the Civil War (1861-65) and it aftermath, for slavery to be abolished throughout the US. See James Oakes' 2012 book, Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865.

James Oakes is a very solid historian on this subject, and I agree with his criticisms of the 1619 program (which as he says are shared by scholars generally). Thank you for pointing me to him. His interview was instructive.

Reply

ConchJun 30

"but that was not what was under discussion. "

Actually, that was exactly what under discussion. By me. You were responding to my comment.

Reply

James W DunlapJul 1

Right, I was responding to your comment that "The United States of America was the first nation to abolish slavery", on the order in which different nations abolished slavery, and saying the USA was the first. Since Vermont,* Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were not nations, but states within the USA, when they abolished slavery does not, strictly speaking their actions, fall within the subject of your comment (nations).

*I mention Vermont because I just learned that it was the first state to abolish slavery outright, in 1777 by legislation. https://nmaahc.si.edu/blog-post/vermont-1777-early-steps-against-slavery So Massachusetts 1783 would be second.

But for sure developments in the northern states from 1780 to the 1861 (when the Civil War began) are very relevant. By 1861 the process of gradual abolition of slavery in the north was far advanced and there were very few slaves left in the north.

This is often an issue in US history. The date when social and legal changes occur "in the US" is always based on when it is in place throughout the US. But since these things are initially matters of state law (though often end up constitutional and federal), the process actually occurs gradually over a long period of time. Besides slavery, this pattern is seen in, e.g.:

--abolition of the death penalty: 1st: Michigan 1847; 12 states (+DC, PR) by 1984; +10 since 2007, now 22+DC, PR. But we still cannot say "The USA has abolished the death penalty."

--women's suffrage: 20 states had given women the right to vote before all women got it in 1920 (19th Amendment)

--prohibition: 1st: Kansas 1880 (ME, VT 1850s; repealed), 25 states by 1920 (federal prohibition; 18th Amendment 1919)

--legalization of abortion (after it was criminalized in all states by 1900): 1st: Colorado 1967. 1973 legal in 20 states (4 abortion on request); Roe v. Wade legalized in US as a whole.

--gay marriage: 1st Massachusetts 2004; legal in 36 states when Obergefell v. Hodges legalized it in the US as a whole.

Reply

ConchJul 1

My original comment was based on info in James Oakes's interview. Perhaps I should have said "the first official abolition of slavery was within the USA." However, I believe Oakes's point should be well taken by all who discuss the "firsts." Oakes cites Vermont 1777 as well as Pennsylvania 1780. Oakes's point is that the post-Revolutionary USA was the site and context of first stirrings to abolish slavery that were translated into action. I do think Americans and the rest of the world can take this point on board. Again, not a MAGA patriot! But let's be honest here.

Of course things developed differently in the South.

The USA was a conglomeration. As was Britain. Actually, the two situations seem to be analogous. Please, no rose-tinted glass regarding abolition of slavery in "Britain"! Per Wiki: "The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV c. 73) abolished slavery **in parts of** the British Empire. This Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom expanded the jurisdiction of the Slave Trade Act 1807 and made the purchase or ownership of slaves illegal within the British Empire, ***with the exception of*** "the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company", Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and Saint Helena. "

The East India Company controlled all of the Indian subcontinent. I cannot here recap that history and its relevance to de facto and actual slavery. Fabulous wealth was creamed away from India, which was deindustrialized by the English back to a level comparable to the antebellum American South. In both cases wealth accrued to both the "home country" and the North. But I think much more wealth to the British from its de facto slaveholding in India than to the American North. The sum has been calculated by various historians.

The British textile industry---called by some the leading edge of the whole industrial revolution--- is strongly implicated in both the "cotton kingdom" of the Confederacy the "undevelopment" of India. My understanding of these circumstances and interrelationships is based in particular on my reading of William Dalrymple, The Anarchy, and Frederick Law Omstead, The Cotton Kingdom. Both wonderful books. Olmstead's has to be read by those who seek to understand the many realities of slavery in the antebellum South. Also various Wiki entries such as "Cotton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton#Britain); "Baghdadi Jews"; "Opium Wars"; Colin Woodard, "American Nations," chapter titled "The War for the West"; and other readings.

Thus, both Britain and parts of the USA abolished slavery, but it nevertheless continued to be practiced in parts of the "realm." I don't know enough about France to make any comment on that country or Belgium. However, there is some interesting and thought-provoking info at this Wiki page:

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Anti-Slavery_Society#Belgian_anti-slavery_expeditions." Namely, that the slave trade continued on the African continent well into the latter part of the 19th C. No one abolished it there, I guess . . .

As Americans we must uphold our own values and not engage in international whataboutism. But within the international and historical context and from the record that I see, this country might be considered to have a good score on the issue of the historic abolition of slavery.

1Reply

James W Dunlap9 hr

I am now in almost complete agreement with what you are saying, Conch. I have enjoyed and profited from this discussion. I appreciate both your knowledge (especially things I didn't know: that's how we learn, and I've learned a lot from you and from following up on what you said!), and your openness to different points of view and new information (which one can't take for granted today). I agree fully with your concluding sentence. "within the international and historical context and from the record that I see, this country might be considered to have a good score on the issue of the historic abolition of slavery."

I thought of just ending there, but in the spirit of our scholarly exchange, add further quick comments on your post and what I found researching it.

I know William Dalrymple well, have read several of his books, met him once (after a public speech), and sent him a long email on the point we discussed. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's a great scholar and writer.

Frederick Law Olmsted (19th c. landscape architect of Central Park, Berkeley, Stanford, etc.): The Cotton Kingdom (1862), a key primary source rather than history, I haven't yet read, but will look at.

Colin Woodard I didn't know, and I see he's a journalist rather than a historian, but his book looks intriguing. Its thesis as stated in the Amazon blurb seems over-simplified and over-generalized, but you can't judge a book by its blurb, and careful studies are mines of information even if we don't completely agree with their thesis/conclusions.

The Wiki entries I found interesting but only tangentially relevant to the issues of slavery.

Cotton#Britain seemed often tendentious and not always well supported by its cites. The idea that Britain derived great net wealth from India and the rest of its empire, which absorbed surplus capital which otherwise had no profitable outlet, was the thesis of Hobson's Imperialism: A Study (1902). Hobson in turn greatly influenced the Marxist-Leninists, e.g. Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest State of Capitalism (1916). And idea that empires were profitable is very popular now in an age which is reflexively "anti-imperialist" but knows next to nothing about imperialism's history.

In fact Britain's wealth and power in the 19th c. (like the US's before and after the Civil War) derived mostly from its own industry, productivity and (later) free trade policies. Investors and their agents certainly profited richly from empires, taxes were paid, and empires' supposed profitability was one heir raisons d'etre. But the imperialist governments and countries bore costs from constant wars, bailouts of the companies, colonial administration, corruption of the home governments, lack of free trade and investment, etc. which overall may have outweighed the profits. Bismarck in Germany saw this and acted accordingly: Germany had no colonies and sought none while he was in charge.

As you note, slavery continued into the late 19th c in parts of Africa (though not in the British, French and Dutch empires). Indeed as noted above, slavery lasted into the 20th c. in much of the world--late 20th c in parts of the Arab world and Africa.

"The East India Company controlled all of the Indian subcontinent": its control varied over time. It went from zero in the 17th c and little in 1757 to most of India by 1803 and almost all by 1856 (except colonies like Goa (Portuguese) and Pondicherry (French)), about half controlled directly, and half Indian Princely States with limited autonomy controlled indirectly. But this was shortlived: the 1857 Indian Rising led to the British East India Company being replaced by direct British government rule in 1858.

William Dalrymple: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/04/east-india-company-original-corporate-raiders;

The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire (2019)

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliament-and-empire/parliament-and-the-american-colonies-before-1765/east-india-company-and-raj-1785-1858/

As noted above, slavery was abolished in British India (i.e. the territories controlled by the British East India Company) in 1843 (just 9 years after its abolition in the rest of the British Empire in 1834).

Thanks again for this discussion, Conch, and for your knowledge, pointers and good manners!

Reply

Conch7 hr

No time right now to respond to all of your points. But I dont' think you are getting the big picture re the connections between the British imperialistic project and the deindustrialization of India. Dal's The Anarchy is about the detail of the history of the East India Company and its conquest of all of India. So, I have read the Guardian piec a long time ago, but the book is chapter and verse. Some info but not enoiugh also about the financing and quite a lot of info about the PROFITS. Bear in mind that the EIC was a private "corproation" backed by the power of the state. This is IMO related to the quesiton of abolition of/de facto slavery that I attempted to bring into the picture.

What struck me (for the first time) in reading the Wiki "Cotton" entry was the discussion of the deindustrialization of India. Dalrlymple also goes into this. Obviously, in order to move the "value added" part of the equation to Britain and its new textile mills. I am surprised that you seem to be naive about these basic relationships and think the EIC was in India . . . for what? Of course it was all about the worldwide expansion of markets that followed on the . . . well, you know the hsitory, or you should!

Re Colin Woodard, I would call him a very good lay historian (Dalrylmple is actually in the same class, i.e., not a trained academic historian, but maybe a notch or two up the ladder, in particular because of his encyclopedic knowledge of languages and cultures of the subcontinent; AAMOF I believe Oakes meantions Woodard's book)--and very good writer. But not a "mere" journalist, as you seem to imply. After reading David Hackett Fischer's "Albion's Seed," I was looking for some material that would expand on that (great) book. I happened upon the Woodard title, but initially was disinclined to read it as I assumed it would be a rehash of Joel Garreau's Nine Nations of North America, which I had read decades prior.

Now it is some years siince I read "American Nations," but it was one of the best reads ever! Really illuminating about many aspects of U.S. history, esp. the Civil War. An "overdetermined" event if there was one. IMO, one cannot understand slavery without understanding the economies of which it has been a part. De facto slavery in India under the EIC is part o that. I somewhat fault Dalrymple's book for not delving into the finances and economic structures put in place by the EIC. His book is primarily a militlarly history, but one cannot understand what was going on without understanding how "plantations" and "factories" were run, and by whom,a nd for what purpose. Hence my adding "Baghdadi Jews" and "Opium Wars" to my relevance list. I do not have time nor resources to read deeply in every relevant subject, but via some Wiki reading and other stuff I can start to discern relationships. If a book is not a "good read," I do not persevere. On the (deep) background to the Atlantic slave trade(among many other extremely interesting topics he tackles) I highly recommend John K. Thornton's "A Cultural History of the Atlantic World." Far, far outclasses Simon Winchester, of whom my opinion is low. Both Thornton and his wife specialize in the history of Africa. This book includes a deep look at the prevailing political /economic conditions in Africa when European slavers first showed up. (Book is not only about Africa, however, nor the slave trade.)

BTW Woodard has an interesting county-by-county map here:

http://colinwoodard.blogspot.com/2012/04/presenting-slighty-revised-american.html

Reply

James W DunlapJun 30

You are right about the Slave Trade Act of 1807, but I referred not to that but to the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act (26 years later).

Reply

CindyJun 30

We were the third nation to abolish it (after Haiti and Britain). Only Great Britain was able to do it peacefully.

1Reply

ConchJun 30

This is debatable, depending on defintiions and political and economic realities. De facto slavery ruled in British India. Britain was heavily involved in maintaining the slave system in the American South. I think James Oakes makes a strong case that the first impulses and actual deeds/legislation to abolish slavery arose in the post-Revolution United States. Funny how everyone wants to be an armchair expert on this point, citing Wiki, etc.

Another thing---to change direction somewhat--- that is funny is how no one wants to discuss the role of Jews in establishing and maintaining slavery-based plantations in the West Indies and India itself. The current BLM movement and the1619 narrative is based on the idea that the crimes of the past are present in the present. But this is confiend to the crimes of (supposed) white Gentiles. Let's broaden the canvas a bit to delinieate the roles of different groups *within* the (not very serviceable) "white" category.

Reply

MascotJun 30

The intellectually curious might also enjoy reading Bill Bryson's book At Home, a history of one of the basics of human existence, shelter, around the world. Information packed:

Q: where were the guest toilets located, in the Palace of Versailles?

A: the stairwells. Not that there was anything there but a stairwell, mind you.

(This blog isn't from Brysons' book, but it has an entry that about the situation at Versailles in those days https://lifeoftheroyals.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/the-toilets-or-lack-of-of-versailles/ )

Those who peruse Bryson's book also get to read about the drinking water arrangements and associated cholera epidemic outbreaks in New York City in the 19th century, etc.

Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 30

You are pathetic in your ignorance.

Any culture that has incinerated whole cities is in no position to call anyone else "savages".

5Reply

Jake AndrewsJun 30

You are pathetic in your virtue signaling

1Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 30

Chuckle.

Pointing out blatant moral stupidity and ethical blindness requires no virtue beyond accuracy.

Try again.

1Reply

SkutchJun 30

Way to justify and rationalize your empirical privilege. So funny how people like cherry pick your own history to toot your own horn. I guess Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and co. where just funnin' all them folks they killed. Are you even aware of how many countries we've wrecked for the mere purpose of keeping them under our thumbs ?

Reply

darkcloudJul 1

Funny, wonder if the white guys you mention are having a cold one in hell with Mao,Pol Pot,Saddam and big daddy Idi Amin?

Reply

SkutchJul 2

What's not funny is how the human race continues to follow the lead of the most sociopathic among us despite watching them rob and exploit us all blind while getting us to murder each other.

How many elites have died in the war of terror ?

Reply

Liz BurtonJun 30

It has been established using DNA studies that there is no such thing as a genetic "race". Our differences in complexion are no different from our differences in eye color. It's simply an aspect of the only real "race"—the human one.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

"It has been established..." - You are either dishonest or out-of-date. Take a look at "How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’" (in the NYT) by David Reich and "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies" (NIH) by Neil Risch. Risch found that race can be determined from genes with 99.86% accuracy. Pretty good for something that doesn't exist. Note that forensic anthropologists can determine race from a skeleton. Pretty good for something that doesn't exist.

Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 30

I suspect that you can determine hair and eye color from DNA as well. What you cite doesn't indicate that "race" is anything more than a set of cosmetic distinctions.

1Reply

ConchJul 1

I thought the classic definition of a species is reproduction: ability to produce fertile offspring. At some point the process of speciation reaches a point where the individuals of the new group cannot produce viable offspring with members of the original species. Since all humans of all colors and external features such as eye color can produce fertile offspring with any other member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, it follows that all are of one species. It has often been noted that the differences in DNA within a supposed race are greater than the differences between supposed races.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

You are correct in suggesting that eye color can be determined from DNA. Not sure about hair color. I haven’t read any research to support such a claim (but it might well be true). To avoid this problem/issue the standard techniques for determining race from DNA don’t use hair and eye color. Typically they use non-coding DNA regions. Risch (et al) is completely typical in this respect. The abstract of his paper reads.

“We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.”

However, the question of how “deep” is race is substantially unknown at this point. Reich (not Risch) was accurate in stating.

“What makes Dr. Watson’s and Mr. Wade’s statements so insidious is that they start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations, and then end with a claim — backed by no evidence — that they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes. They use the reluctance of the academic community to openly discuss these fraught issues to provide rhetorical cover for hateful ideas and old racist canards.

This is why knowledgeable scientists must speak out. If we abstain from laying out a rational framework for discussing differences among populations, we risk losing the trust of the public and we actively contribute to the distrust of expertise that is now so prevalent. We leave a vacuum that gets filled by pseudoscience, an outcome that is far worse than anything we could achieve by talking openly.

If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong. For example, my laboratory discovered in 2016, based on our sequencing of ancient human genomes, that “whites” are not derived from a population that existed from time immemorial, as some people believe. Instead, “whites” represent a mixture of four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago and were each as different from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today.

So how should we prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years, genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these traits will differ on average across human populations? It will be impossible — indeed, anti-scientific, foolish and absurd — to deny those differences.”

Realistically, it will probably take another 20 years to determine which human characteristics are determined by genes (and to what extent). Here is a good model, only recently has science been able to show that the height difference between northern Europeans and southern Europeans (around 2 inches) is genetic rather than dietary.

Reply

Jake AndrewsJun 30

I especially feel sorry for the professional black athletes, politicians and Barack Obama for bearing up so well in this race stifling hellscape that is America!

Reply

SkutchJun 30

It isn't black folks that are stealing trillions with total impunity every time the economy melts down now is it ? How many blacks are on the Forbes list ? We all know who the biggest thieves have been throughout history not to mention all the genocide committed as of late. I'd say the elite have proven they just never where all that elite to begin with.

1Reply

TMCJun 30

Are you talking about the genocide in Rwanda where the genocide was black on black?

Reply

SkutchJun 30

No, the genocide all over the middle east that is white on brown. You know, the one you're trying so hard to pretend isn't happening.

Reply

C WardJun 30

Let Shaqil get some other culture to pay him millions to play with his balls.

1Reply

Mel C. ThompsonJul 1

I'm not a Christian, but the fact that Christianity is fading creates a crisis similar too if Agnosticism started to take hold in a Muslim country. The question would be this: Once we remove the core myth of any society (and it is perhaps time, even, to admit that the Christian, Jewish and Muslim myths are outdated) what do we replace those all-consuming myths with? The answer is that Near Eastern Monotheism got replaced with intersectionalism (another name for the theory out of which identity politics arises). When one debates an identity politics person, you're not debating an idea, you're debating the very core mythology they have, the very thing which animates their whole way of knowing and being. The one advantage one has in debating a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim, is that they actually admit they have a specific faith and that it's almost all they live for. In this way, an honest debate could ensue. Social justice warriors don't know they're in the Christianity-Judaism-Islam substitute religion, hence they can't admit, as any honest Christian would, that they're not at liberty to change their minds and leave their faith even if they lose a debate. For the politically correct person, anyone who would debate them is, and this is word for word from virtually all the politically-correct people in San Francisco, "trying to destroy everything I've spent my life fighting for." The advantage the Muslim and the Jew have, as well as the Christian, is they're used to the fact, when they enter a theology debate that, by definition, their interlocutor is trying to "undermine their core values." After all, if your core belief were, for example, that the New Testament is final word of God; and if an Orthodox Jew was arguing that the Torah is more important and even supercedes the New Testament, then you are both "trying to undermine everything each other has spent their lives fighting for." Grown ups can face that. Children can't, and intersectionalism is for people who can't grow up and therefore can't debate. They can't afford to, as their beliefs are too brittle. Rival theologians can be friends because, for one thing, they have thick skin. The blue-haired people of Hollywood can never have real friends, because their faith in intersectionalism isn't strong enough to survive even a single defeat or even a real debate. Intersectionalism is even more brittle than Scientology, and actually more dangerous and all-consuming. Both Scientology and intersectionalism attempt to destroy dissenters, but the army of digital assassins the intersectionalists control is in the tens of millions. Scientology can't order Silicon Valley around, but intersectionalism can. And this makes political correctness the most deadly and toxic ideology on the planet today.

4Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

Boom! There it is. NYT follows AP heading into election summer race war. Gotta love the ridiculous explanations. They're even better than the ones the NYT came up with for the difference between hyphenated and unhyphenated African American, which made no sense unless maybe your a racist seeking bias confirmation. Quote follows:

Effective yesterday, The New York Times began capitalizing the word “Black” when describing people and cultures of African origin. “We believe this style best conveys elements of shared history and identity, and reflects our goal to be respectful of all the people and communities we cover,” Dean Baquet, the executive editor, and Phil Corbett, another senior editor, wrote in a memo.

The Times will not be capitalizing the word “white.” As Dean and Phil explained: “There is less of a sense that ‘white’ describes a shared culture and history. Moreover, hate groups and white supremacists have long favored the uppercase style, which in itself is reason to avoid it.”

3Reply

MascotJul 2

Oh man, what a weak-minded move by the Times. That experiment with double standards is not going to wear well. Not that I have any interest in seeing the capitalization extended to any other descriptive ethnic adjective, mind you. It's the equivalent of hitting a cliched drama chord in the soundtrack for a movie, to signal the appearance of a character. Awfully infra-dig, for an ostensible "paper of record."

I suspect that there are a lot of black-type Americans who oppose that uppercasing, or who will soon tire of it.

I'd be okay if the News Paper returned to the Rampant & Whimsickal Uppercase Usage of the Lewis & Clark Era, however. It might be the Only remedy for the Resulting Confusion, &c.

Reply

ROD SANDERS21 hr

Like I wrote, they aren't alone. They're just a week behind AP.

When they treat people differently on the basis of race, it's called racism. These so-called news organizations are building racism into the English language. They want to promote division, not unity among people.

Oh, I unmuted the thread because it mutes everything, not just a particular conversation. Duh, on my part. Now I'll try to see if this thing accepts a link to the 6/19 AP announcement:

https://apnews.com/71386b46dbff8190e71493a763e8f45a

Reply

Bea GarthJun 29

I have long thought it wrong that one can no longer intelligently discuss cultural differences in this country and how those differences can affect us. If one does dare say anything many people will accuse that person of being a racist. I believe that at base we are actually all once race that has many different cultures. Think about it--all of humanity came out of Africa. The fact we developed different shades of color and different types of cultures over the ages does not affect who we basically are inside and what our capabilities are--although our cultural upbringing will affect how we frame those things we think are important and thus what we are capable of. To my mind the continuation of the "thought police" regarding even mentioning cultural differences is truly worrisome. The only ones that seem to be able to get away with it at all these days are humorists. I have gotten in trouble in the past due to the fact that I recognize we do have cultural differences that can influence our choices. My father was an ethnologist and my grandfather studied studied racial differences by studying twins separated at birth. Despite the fact he was from the South originally, he came up with the theory that Nurture rather than Nature was the true source of our so called mental racial differences, and that genetically as "races" we are all equally capable. Thus what we need to work on is creating a more equitable society where we all have equal educational opportunities as we grow up and can get ahead based on our individual merit while also cherishing and honoring the interesting cultural differences between us. Thank you for your continued clear thinking and ironic point of view looking at our crazy culture wars here in America.

11Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

I remember that nature v. nurture argument as it was taught by the 3 Stooges. I can't remember exactly what the conclusion was but I'm pretty sure they got slapped around while getting to it. Maybe we'll all end up a nice creamy golden color in a few centuries. My personal favorite color is JLo. Yum!

Reply

robJun 29

Mr. Taibbi,

You remind me of George Orwell, true to your beliefs but not pressured or bribed to betray what you argue to be correct. For what it's worth, may people salute you.

9Reply

DMichaelsJun 29

I think Matt makes a point about how self-serving her point of view is. We can never get or look past our racial differences so we will always need lavishly paid corporate diversity consultants. That's really the basis for her ideology and the reason why corporate America is so invested in her claptrap.

10Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

"...we will always need lavishly paid corporate diversity consultants."

That has to be one of the stupidest comments ever written since clay tablets in ancient Sumer.

Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

One of the rare moments when I wish I was still on social media. I want to shout this article out from the rooftops.

10Reply

Joshua ReaserJun 29

right on!

Reply

UpperwestsliderJun 29

Another brave expose of the ascendant orthodoxy of thought.

10Reply

BBJun 30

How many white folks on this thread have actually attempted to engage fellow white people in conversations about racism? How about you, Matt? If you did, you wouldn't be so quick to criticize this book. As a white dude, I attempt it regularly and I can can confirm that much of what DiAngelo says is true: White folks have a script that we recite when people bring up racism. Most white folks become immediately defensive and many lash out. You don't like the book, fine, but what are you doing instead? You can do something meaningful right now: Educate yourself about racism and talk to other white people about it. Or talk with Black folks about what it's like to be Black in America. Or you can sit on your lazy ass and criticize and clutch your pearls about how your syrup is changing its look. Get real white people.

6Reply

Stephen JohnJun 30

Most people willing to have a conversation (meaning 2 ways),

But supporting an openly Marxist organization and using fabricated social science to bend people to their will...... Hard pass

7Reply

landonJun 30

Um they dont think about race they are too busy working.

Isnt that what MLK's goal was?

3Reply

BBJun 30

That's white privilege -- not having to think about race. Black folks are forced to think about race every day, because white folks keep choosing to stay ignorant and ignore the racism that exists. MLK was one of the most hated men in America while he was alive -- because he made white people uncomfortable by bringing up race and poverty all the time. Who do you talk with about race in the US?

2Reply

MikeJun 30

You are literally calling someone out for not thinking about race in a essay and commentary which is about nothing but race. Yes MLK was hated by many including the FBI, but even more admired and supported him, including LBJ. He is loved not because he was angry, but because he was successful in changing America. It distress me that so many people think that Jim Crow, red lining, the KKK, lynching, Black voter suppression via poll taxes and literacy tests, etc are a relevant critique of present day American society. It is always interesting when people dismiss the election of Obama as somehow irrelevant. This level of historic blindness may be convenient, as it does empower the narrative that this society is incapable of change. Many, many people, of all races, fought hard, even died, to change America, and their sacrifice is ignored and their accomplishments belittled. Their successes are roadmaps, but these lessons are inaccessible to those who deny their sacrifice for the convenience of a simplistic ideology.

7Reply

landonJun 30

Black people with busy work schedules do the same. The fact that you dont see people as people and only through the prism of race tells me you're the problem

5Reply

BBJun 30

Prove me wrong: Talk to a Black person about what it's like to be Black in America. Do you know any Black people? Have you tried? If you are white, you were raised to view Black people in a certain way -- and you're not even conscious of it. You gotta do some work if you want things to change. Or are you more interested in staying comfortable and safe?

2Reply

landonJun 30

What is the first thing you recommend to a white person to "strive to be less white"?

Be specific

1Reply

BBJun 30

I listed 3 things: 1. Educate yourself, 2. Ask a Black person if they're willing to share their experiences of racism (if you don't know any Black folks, ask why), 3. Talk with other white folks. Bottom line: Be curious about what it's like for folks who aren't white -- in other words, make your world view more diverse and get out of your white bubble. Here's an important article to read: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwoub3BRC6ARIsABGhnybtOh1ujguxMmIM4IPE2dIg99M34h9rSZQ-GTnFf7bC2BiyOe0CuAwaAmj6EALw_wcB

4Reply

QuazarJun 30

Whites DO have to think about race, ask any white person who lives in a black neighborhood. They are in constant and justified fear of racially motivated attacks, as is borne out by the crime statistics, showing black on white crime to occur at a rate of 10x that of the inverse.

You only think that "white people don't have to think about race" because the progressive media filter bubble you consume gives a one sided story, only ever showing you the black point of view

The truth is that white people go out of their way to avoid black criminality, even spending obscene amounts of money on homes in "good neighbborhoods" which is a euphemism. They think about race every day

Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 30

Baloney.

I've lived in predominately Black neighborhoods for over 20 years and I was never in fear of "racially motivated attacks". Nor would that fear have been "justified" since I never experienced any such attacks.

You're spouting racist propaganda.

Reply

SkutchJul 1

Can we see some links to your statistics please ? Rather curious where they came from.

Reply

RamiJun 30

“That’s white privilege - not having to think about race”.

Right. “ So today I had the air conditioning broken, the pipes need repair, my car needs a new battery, our son failed calculus in college, we won’t be able to pay the mortgage this month, and the basement is full of water...but, never mind honey... we need to talk about race”

Can you people at least try to use your common sense and apply it to real everyday life? Geezas!

Reply

ScottJun 30

No need to toss generalizations and insult around.

You'd be surprised at how many "white people" are actually NOT cunts. I have a theory that of ten people, one will be Charles Manson psycho, one will be someone you'd think was "amazing", and the remaining eight would be some really nice people. Doesn't matter if you're at a backyard cookout with a bunch of Mexican folks, Black folks, Asian folks, Romanians, Russians... The list goes on.

Looking back on my 47 years, has pretty much held up. I've been fortunate to walk alongside all manner of human and mostly... it's been a blast.

Here's the secret: The past is the past; the future is yet to manifest itself and all we have is how we create in this very moment.

That's reality; not what these media twats report for reasons known only to them.

Turn away from the mind control and feel your weight.

7Reply

BBJun 30

Scott, I appreciate what you're saying and agree that most white people are friendly and well-intentioned. I have a whole family full of them. But that doesn't mean that we, as white folks, don't participate in racist systems and benefit from them. I'm 5 years older than you, and have lived overseas and met lots of great people. And, I see within myself that I have ideas about Black people that I picked up from growing up in America. Doesn't mean I'm bad -- I just have some bad beliefs. The only minor claim I make is that I'm willing to look at those beliefs and would like to find more white people who are willing to do the same. I honestly haven't found many. As far as "the media" I don't see it a monolith. There are lots of good resources out there beside mainstream news, etc.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

"most white people"

"we, as white folks"

"I have ideas about Black people"

"more white people who are willing"

Consistently blatant racist, post after post. Tsk, tsk.

1Reply

jonathan bellJun 30

are you aware how ridiculous you look lecturing Matt on "educating" himself on race? Clearly you have some soul searching to do and demons to confront. Perhaps this is why you cling to your anti racism evangelism...not unlike how addicts find Jesus.

4Reply

Ryan DunovichJun 30

He literally wrote a book on systemic racism dude

4Reply

BBJun 30

Yeah, on Eric Garner. Which makes his cluelessness about how most white people respond to racism all the more baffling to me. He did a great job of exposing the institutional racism in our justice system. How many white folks on this thread and in America at large, are even willing to acknowledge that reality. I keep talking to white people who deny systemic racism even exists. I really don't think Matt would react like this if he was regularly trying to talk with white people about racism.

3Reply

SergeJun 30

Wrong book, read "The Divide"

1Reply

BBJun 30

In checking the table of contents, everything is framed as a rich vs poor issue. I imagine he gets into the racial wealth divide (white median wealth = 12x Black median wealth)?

Reply

MattJun 30

It's funny that you think anyone that doesn't agree with you needs to be educated. It's almost like you don't believe in the lived experiences of others

3Reply

BBJun 30

Matt, If you're white, over, say 30 and raised in America like me, I would guess that you did not receive much education about racism in school. This is one of DiAngelo's points: most white folks have to go out of our way to get educated on racism. Most of us are not very motivated because we enjoy the comfort of our white bubbles. If you've moved out of your comfort zone and educated yourself about racism, I applaud you! Can you recommend any articles or books that have been especially useful in your education? -- because I'm still learning and appreciate recommendations. Cheers!

Reply

HarryJun 30

I'm white and was raised in a "western" country similar to America. I received formal education about my country's history of racism and colonialism that I have no doubt would be considered "in-adequate" by the "anti-racism coalition" of people like DiAngelo. Now I don't necessarily disagree that American schools could do with a restructuring of their curriculum regarding race, however embedding the text from people like DiAngelo shouldn't be the way forward for the reasons Taibbi outlined in the article. You talk about "white bubbles" and "education", which leads me to an honest question, do you not know non-white people? Life isn't a university and you don't need to do assigned readings. Like, if I wasn't exposed to any "anti racist" texts or education I would still have a similar outlook on race due to the shared universal experiences I have had with other non-white people in my life.

And NO this didn't involve "asking a black person if they are willing to talk about their experiences" that shit is fucking weird (you're going to push people away with your obvious self flagellation/white guilt). Racism is obviously a massive, structural problem, but people like DiAngelo are not the solution. They are snake oil sales people who will sell you their "wondercure" without addressing the underlying issues of capitalism. I wonder why white people "lash out" when you speak about racism ? Is it maybe because you're annoying on a personable level? Maybe all your criticism is devoid of class analysis (and are essentially neo-liberal talking points)? Maybe it's because you're doing it at in-appropriate times ?("dude we are trying to eat! Why the fuck are you talking about white privilege again?). Maybe (like DiAngelo) you are doing it with a power in-balance. People are irritable and defensive when the company they work for is making them discuss their personable beliefs and insinuating that they have some sort of "original sin" of racism? WOW, no shit they get angry! Can you imagine any other demographic in a similar situation? If you want someone to listen to you and take on your point of view being a condescending ass doesn't work unless they are borderline Masochistic ("gEt rEAl wHiTe pEoPLe" might have worked on you but it's going to turn away anyone with a shred of dignity). It's all good to say "educate yourself" but your curiculum is dogshit. Ironically Taibbi IS actually doing something postive by trying to snuff out this exploitative grift in the wake of a legitimate surge of racial consciousness ("white fragility" does more harm than good IMO and this op-ed's opinion and it's an issue that it has become a best seller).

TLDR: You obviously missed the point of the article.

3Reply

jonathan bellJun 30

there you go "guessing" again. you remind me of your average 18 year old who arrives at college and is awakened to the stark realities of oppression for the first time. Then said freshly indignant student returns home for the holidays only to unremmitingly scold mom, dad , aunt Jane and uncle Ted, piously broadcasting his/her conversion to righteousness through a ceaseless indictment of his/her family's moral failures.

Eventually, most people grow out of this initial self-absorbed confrontation with injustice and transition to an emphasis on working on oneself and being a model (through how one treats people and what one actually DOES with one's life) for others, as opposed to making one's mission the dissemination of presumptuous hectoring of people you don't know. Hopefully I am being presumptuous and in fact you are more than a holier-than-thou crank. You certainly provide little wiggle room for that possibility.

1Reply

MattJun 30

I think you're confusing educating one's self with being told what to think

Reply

BBJun 30

If this is The Matt then I appreciate the discussion you’ve kicked off here. I can accept your criticism that DiAngelo lacks art, but I’m really surprised (having followed you for several years) that you see so little value in what she offers. I don’t feel any need to take her word as gospel.

Reply

Stephanie WilsonJun 30

whenever white people talk about race & racism they're usually attacked as racist. that's why most don't want to talk about it. as for this woman's book, it imo, is insane.

1Reply

IbbiatJun 30

LOL. You sure are on a high horse when it sounds like all you've done to combat racism is read a book and have a chat with some of your white friends. Give yourself a big pat on the back for how woke you are.

Or maybe do something useful like go march in a protest, donate money (or, even better, your time) to organizations that are working on e.g. police and legal reform, donate money to legal aid funds for black people, get involved in local politics with the goal of working to combat systemic racism, I mean the list goes on and on.

Matt researched and wrote a book about racism. And you're criticizing him. LOL.

1Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

Blatant racism. Your post makes several references to black and white people. But you treat people differently based on their race. You capitalize black and not white. When you treat one race differently than another, it's racist. Deplorable.

Reply

Chris BJun 30

Thank you!!

Reply

sasinseaJun 29

I read White Fragility and it was a tedious, empty slog. Agree with nearly all of Matt has to say here. One thing he didn't mention though? That the book imagines *all* interactions as if they're between colleagues or employer/employee. There's no room given to organic friendships between real people who met at a wedding or a bar (remember those?) or just chatting on the bus.

DiAngelo pretends all our human relationships happen in the context of a white collar office and have the vibrancy of rootmarm. Which is likely because that's her world: a tedious, lifeless place where every interaction demands parsing and apologizing and atonement.

No one should navigate their entire life like the world is an office place. DiAngelo, however, wants us to do precisely that.

8Reply

Andy RobinsonJul 2

I am not white, and what I have observed is that white people are "fragile" in the sense they will willingly tear down a civilization that has brought more good to this world than any before it, and any other that exists today, because at their core they worry they MIGHT be guilty of some deep, innate bias or anti-group animus.

In other words, "White Fragility" is itself Newspeak for the generous tendency to self-sacrifice even when you have done nothing to harm he or she for whom you sacrifice. Unfortunately, this leaves our new iconoclasts with much less work to do to bring it all crashing down--with no sense of with what they will replace it, and indeed no possibility of replacing it with anything better.

2Reply

Mel C. ThompsonJun 30

I watched identity politics destroy the literary scene in the Bay Area. I saw it coming and got out while there was time. It's now a dying scene, like Hollywood and Yahoo! Dead souls feeding off the scraps of dying media empires. Loveless people hunting around for people to purge. Unforgiving, loveless, merciless, petty and lifeless, these people will be forgotten instantly and end up 40-year-old virgins. Identity politics is a land of desperate nobodies who contribute nothing to the world and who are addicted to control. As a liberal, one thing I did was to Democrat-proof my life. I discovered that although I disagree with the political positions of my conservative friends, they're ten times more able to have conversations. Twitter is an amoral playground for opportunistic sociopaths. My liberal friends out there: Make haste to get a huge cadre of non-progressive friends. You'll be so glad you did. Even the fundamentalist Christians I know are infinitely more tolerant than progressives. I've never seen any deeper bigotry, any deeper hatred on the planet, than the anti-white bigots of Los Angeles and Oakland. The hatred they emit feels uglier than anything I ever saw from the most far-right racist I ever knew. Yes, these Twitter mobsters are the most hideous people that I've ever observed in a lifetime of reading world literature, studying world religions and traveling the world. There's just no more awful people than big-city, California, identity politics people. If you're trapped in an ocean of them, gradually and quietly, move your emotional life away from them and toward anyone else, whether conservatives, religious people, non-PC people from other cultures, or just any non-PC group of people you can find. Ever-so-slowly, flee them. Get a conservative landlord, even if you're liberal, because the mob will come after your home. Try to find a conservative-owned bank, because the mob will come after your bank account. Try to build a parallel infrastructure which excludes any outside progressive influence. I say this as a liberal. You can still have liberal beliefs but realize that your own culture has become evil and that you'll have to stay away from it for a long time and live among other groups. If you're looking for love, do not, under any circumstances, date a person who is all about identity politics. Your life will be miserable if you do. You'll thank me for this advice in five years. I promise. I did it and I've never been happier. Get away from these people while you can.

5Reply

Eric73Jul 1

I am of a similar variety to Matt - a white gen-X liberal. I am more centrist than him on issues of economics and foreign policy, so I disagree with him on quite a bit. But on this topic he's been completely on point. I have grown increasingly bewildered by the growing shallowness and obsession with form over substance in our modern conception of "racism". The irony of the title "White Fragility" is that it's correct in a way that the author doesn't get. This is exactly what is responsible for the fact that the struggle for civil rights has devolved into a series of performative rituals and empty gestures designed to serve the delicate sensibilities of people who'd rather not confront the real socioeconomic inequalities which are at the root of racial division. Political correctness was created by a combination of minorities looking for a way to be heard and realizing that white people were so eager for an expedient means of absolving their white guilt that they responded eagerly to any easy opportunity to prove their allegiance to the tolerant half of society. It was an understandably tempting but short-sighted tactic which ultimately had little to do with actual real gains made by minorities, but succeeded in letting white folks sweep it all under the rug by simply creating a new set of standards for polite society. And now that those standards have proven (surprise!) insufficient to solve racism, we've decided the problem is that they simply weren't draconian enough, and not enough people were having their lives destroyed - sorry, being "held accountable" - for violating them. And predictably, in their own self-interest, white "allies" are eagerly lapping it up in order to earn their "One of the Good Ones" merit badges. We aren't turning things around - we're doubling down on our past mistakes.

4Reply

PaulJun 29

I don't mean to dismiss all your points here, Matt, but I think your piece is pretty dismissive of one huge factor here (and by all means, please correct me if I'm wrong for misunderstanding): being white is, in fact, a privilege. And I don't know how to break that down any more as a fact. I have to agree with DiAngelo that a positive white identity is impossible to attain--and as a white person, I have no issue with this. I would never feel pride for being white, and I'm only capable of sympathy for those of darker skin color that do feel pride. The cards have been stacked so heavily against every other race that has been punished, killed, and/or committed genocide against in this country through the last few centuries for no other reason than their skin color, that to have pride in dark skin only seems fitting and logical to me. When whites are in the minority in America, we can re-evaluate this discussion.

And while like you, I do not like the prospect of even rejecting Dr. King's "dream" of racial harmony as an aspirational goal of the future, I don't see how this "dream" talk helps the cause for equality when the featherweight contender is trying to use it against the 3x heavy weight gold belt champion. It hasn't worked out so well since the time of King's assassination, and thus new ideas that might get the ball rolling again such as the ones DiAngelo puts forth are welcome as far as I'm concerned. Hey, it got us chatting as much.

Please do not misunderstand my post as "trolling" you as I have a great deal of admiration for your work, and am a paying fan. I look forward to any further discussion, always in good faith.

6Reply

DontbanmebroJun 29

To believe in white privilege is to fundamentally believe white people are, and always will be, better than all else. Any white person who isn’t constantly discriminating against themselves is therefore racist by exercising their superiority.

8Reply

J. C. SalomonJun 29

“[B]eing white is, in fact, a privilege.”

So what?

Seriously—what is the moral consequence of that statement?

8Reply

MascotJun 29

"White privilege" is important because it needs to be acknowledged as a historical legacy that provided European ancestry people- including myself- with advantages denied to the African castaways. And because it's an unearned privilege. A birth-attributed status, not an achieved status.

(I use the word "white" advisedly, in the sense that it was employed by the people who made the rules in those days.)

The moral consequence is that if you think that the African castaways aren't owed anything beyond the baseline of their "emancipation" from slavery- that all of the accounts were squared up just as soon as those millions of people were "freed"- overwhelmingly penniless, landless, culturally degraded, and 94% illiterate- then you are, in my opinion, fooling yourself.

4Reply

MascotJun 29

I'll also note- with Matt- that no amount of faux-mo quasi-Maoist re-education seminars and student or employee self-criticism sessions are going to address the substantive issues related to authentic restorative justice for the African castaways. Especially since so much of the political energy directed by the centers of American institutional power toward that population after the event of the freeing of the enslaved Africans in 1865 was directed at the project of keeping them dehumanized, impoverished, unwelcome, marginalized, and expendable.

3Reply

RemJun 29

You aren’t living in the real world, you write like you’re being held hostage.

1Reply

TMCJun 30

What in the hell is an "African castaway"? Did they wash up on our shores from a shipwreck?

2Reply

WazoomannJun 29

There's never been less racism in the US than now. I've been on the receiving end and have personal experience in the matter. It exists, but has been driven to the fringes of American society. Funny you should use boxing as a meme, a sport dominated by minorities. As far as "racism" goes, it is practiced by all and every color of skin against minorities. Africa is now the leader in slave trade.

3Reply

ConchJun 30

Africa had a flourishing slave trade when the Portuguese first showed up. There was also a flourishing Arab slave trade in whites and Jews. I am sick of the ahistorical 1619 fairy tale. It is being pushed by the New York Times. Why? Why should this easily debunked "1619" narrative be pushed into schools as a curriculum? There is definitely an agenda here.

6Reply

SkepticJun 29

War, genocidal massacres, torture, racism, and slavery infested the Americas long before the Europeans arrived. Read about the Comanche. Read about the Aztecs.

The indigenous population before the Europeans was a bunch of warring tribes with different languages and cultures. When new tribes came on the scene from far away--including the Spanish and English--they did plenty of bad things, but no worse than what was happening before. They just had much better technology and organization, at the level of nation states. So they usually won against indigenous forces, but they also warred against each other. Unfortunately, this is what human history has been, always and everywhere.

Western Civilization has not committed more acts of cruelty or racism than others. While it is guilty of sins, it uniquely created the concepts and sentiments to focus humanity on individual rights and the value of human life, so that slavery and genocide could be curtailed. These concepts would have been incomprehensible nonsense to previous cultures, and truth be told, still are nonsense today in many parts of the world.

The story that makes Europeans and Western Civilization especially guilty for war, genocide, and racism is pure propaganda. It can only be maintained if you don't learn about nonWestern history. I hate to put it this way, but your first paragraph shows that someone has lied to you.

3Reply

SkutchJun 29

Non of the those warring tribes are currently in power nor did they ever hold as much of the world hostage as the western European nations do now. We've weaponized food, medicine, energy, credit, justice, public opinion beyond the wildest dreams of even the Roman empire. We've also been under reporting our acts of cruelty and mass murder while completely obscuring our looting and pillaging.

Someone has been lying to you too, as well as all the rest of us, and you can bet they are not poor or a minority race.

2Reply

SkepticJun 29

According to World Bank figures, the percentage of people living in extreme poverty fell from 37 percent 30 years ago to about 8 percent this year before COVID hit, even as population grew about 40 percent. This is likely the greatest poverty reduction in human history, and saved the lives of countless kids. In addition, Steven Pinker documents how this was a time of unprecedented peace.

All this was achieved because so many countries started adopting the formula first identified in the West, which is available to everyone: free markets, free enterprise, limited government, competitive and pluralist political system.

Not coincidentally, this explosion in prosperity began just as the Soviet Union collapsed, and command economies were discredited in most of the world. Unfortunately, that vicious experiment on humans and its imitators in other countries took about 100 million lives before it was discarded.

Tragically, the global crisis triggered by COVID may make the world so unstable that demagogues can return parts of it to twisted utopian fantasies that leave more piles of dead bodies, and more kids starved.

4Reply

SkutchJun 30

Who grades their homework ? I'd be willing to bet their "investors" see to that for them.

Reply

StxbuckJun 30

Apart from the sanitation, medicine, wine, education, public order, irrigation and the freshwater system, what have the Romans really done for us?

1Reply

CowboxJul 1

What advantage of being white in America can't be explained by a combination of advantages from being part of the majority (for now) and situational advantage (like social class)?

These two working in conjunction can explain the epiphenomenon of "white privilege" and can be generalized to explain disparate life outcomes (when individual skill and talent is controlled for) in more than the American context.

I entrust you to explore beyond the bubble of the wealthy west and see that anti-racist theory, and critical race theory are pop science garbage that only look correct through the nost narrow, filtered view.

Reply

mbeakenJul 1

So you are dismissing at average wealth, income, school funding, etc and saying that there are poor white people too? That still doesn’t explain why there would be disparities nationally (what does explain that? Systemic racism). Even if you look at a black and white person from the same social class you could look at things like: likelihood of arrest for drug use, likelihood of harsher sentencing for the same crime, likelihood to even get called back for jobs (controlling for all factors except a black/white sounding name), who you see growing up in positions of wealth and power, knowing that if you DO succeed in being upwardly mobile you will most likely be surrounded by people of your same race as you move “up” in the world (both in workplace and in “good” neighborhoods with “good” schools), if you do move into a “good” neighborhood, having to make a decision to send your child to a school where they will most likely be the only black child in the classroom, etc. These are just some examples of how you are still often at a disadvantage if you are black in this country, even controlling for other factors.

Reply

CraigJun 29

Being white is NOT a privilege....therefore your starting assumption is completely incorrect. And yes you are "trolling"......typical leftest projecting.

Reply

angelOJun 30

I'm struck by the fact that Taibbi has had so little to say about the murders of Ahmed Arberry, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, and so much to say - none of it good - about the nature of the protests, and about addressing, nay, just DISCUSSING, white supremacy. I cancelled my subscription, but I'm sure there are plenty of anti-black people who will rush in to take my place.

1Reply

Bill McNealJun 30

The man literally wrote a book titled, "I Can't Breathe" about the death of Eric Garner. His position on the issues with the police and the justice system are no secret.

6Reply

angelOJun 30

You're absolutely right! Having written that book, he's entitled to a lifetime pass. Now, just to clarify, that includes getting to say the N-word, right?

1Reply

Bill McNealJun 30

I'm consistently surprised when I see responses like this. You're in a rage that a book review doesn't touch on issue A, B, or C. I mention that the author's position on those issues is well known, you then go off the deep end and whip out a pejorative.

You must be a blast at parties.

6Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

You're racism is showing.

When blacks kill whites, no one cares. When whites kill blacks, it's national news. Most murders are intraracial. However, interracial murders do occur. More blacks kill whites than vice-versa. However, the media attention is totally reversed.

1Reply

SergeJun 30

Fragility: Confirmed

1Reply

Will CJun 29

Thanks for this, Matt. Anyone with the courage to call this manipulative, uncultured, antisocial BS for what it is will always have my affection and support. If it's a reading list that's needed, I suggest that "The Emporer's New Clothes" be first on it.

8Reply

Dale FitzgeraldJun 29

Matt, I’m constantly amazed by your work. This is an article EVERYONE needs to read right now!

8Reply

Trudy CooperJun 29

Thanks, Matt, for consistently blowing the cover off the B.S. of the neoliberals, and pulling NO punches in the process. And especially, thanks for sentences like this one: " What’s easier, giving up business models based on war, slave labor, and regulatory arbitrage, or benching Aunt Jemima?"

8Reply

KLSJun 29

You da man Matt! Oops! Is that sexist?

8Reply

KgibsonJun 29

Great article. I’m a recent subscriber and articles like this are the reason I subscribed.

8Reply

SherryJun 29

Me as well. I'm so sick of the propaganda from both sides and just want decent analysis and clarity.

8Reply

SkepticJun 29

Me as well. I subscribed after the last article, and this one makes me even more glad that I did.

Matt is doing something important, possibly even historically significant, and I think he senses that.

4Reply

Paula10Jul 1

Racism is a favorite of Marxists to divide and conquer. Nothing new here. The left has been brainwashing minorities with their cult of the victim since the fifties. It is based on envy.

IMHO, what makes us unique (and therefore, interesting) is our culture and personal history. Every tribe has its own culture. Conflict arises when cultures refuse to understand the other's mores and values (or the other culture has something they want). In the current situation, it appears that a minority culture wants what the majority culture has (and more). Many seem to be more willing to kill to get it than to work.

Sometimes it's a lot simpler to conform to the majority culture (brush your teeth, comb your hair, show up on time, do you work) for business reasons. Nobody wants to be absorbed by the Borg, lose their individuality, creativity or free will. Everyone is entitled to retain their cultural identity, even white Christians.

2Reply

Paul BreidenbachJun 29

Don't embrace white identity. There's no biological or genetic basis for race, just a lot of bullshit justifications for slavery, disenfranchisement, and expropriation. When you embrace a racist fiction as an essential part of your identity, that's racist. Check out Barbara Fields' classic essay if you want to be able to stop misrepresenting the academic consensus. https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/essays/fieldsideolandrace.html

This is not a comment on the book you're bitching about, which I haven't read. Your throwaway about academics suggest you might have misunderstood it.

4Reply

CertexJun 29

What the hell is 'white identity'? Is it the same in different countries? Different strata of society? The same in Scotland and America and New Zealand and any country where white people are in the minority? I am not the same as a white middle class American person. 'White identity' is a meaningless amorphous rubric.

2Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 29

In real life, 'white identity' either doesn't exist or his highly variable. In Robin DiAngelo's fantasy world, 'white identity' is universal and consistent. She missed her true calling as a German propagandist in the 1930s. That's not quite true as it turns out. Mein Kampf was published as a radical feminist tract recently. They (the radical feminists) loved it.

7Reply

CertexJun 29

Was the radical feminist tract subtitled The SCUM Manifesto, by any chance? :)

1Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 29

No, the title appears to have been "Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism". The title should have been a warning to the editors that accepted the work. "Mein Kampf" translates as "My Struggle". The journal that accepted the "paper" was Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 29

"There's no biological or genetic basis for race" - You are either dishonest or out-of-date. Take a look at "How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’" (in the NYT) by David Reich and "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies" (NIH) by Neil Risch. Risch found that race can be determined from genes with 99.86% accuracy. Pretty good for something that doesn't exist. Note that forensic anthropologists can determine race from a skeleton. Pretty good for something that doesn't exist.

5Reply

MascotJun 29

It isn't that simple.

That study doesn't mean what you think it does.

The Risch study isn't using an imposed taxonomical definition to determine race; their subjects "self-identified" their population heritage based on the common parlance of American society ("white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic.") None of those groups qualify as "races." For one thing, in this country, there's a high quotient of hybridity in all of them. Including within those artificial categories, as well as between them. And presumably South Asian Indians, Arabs, etc. got put into the "Caucasian" i.e., "white" category, because reasons.

Because that's how biological taxonomy is. Species are easily objectively defined in biology- they're unable to interbreed. But after that, the definitions tend to become arbitrary. In most animals, "races" are associated with isolated local populations. Without the isolation, hybridity is the usual result. Also, for a lot of species it's often a very near thing to tell one race from the other from their hybrids, and there are many questions and debates that are still unresolved.

Also, fwiw, if genetic technology advances far enough for humans, it's all irrelevant. If you want your kids- or maybe even yourself- to have skin like those critters in Avatar, that's probably doable. Etc. Remember, "race" is a pre-DNA concept.

1Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

From "The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling" (https://www.wired.com/2007/10/the-inconvenient-science-of-racial-dna-profiling/)

"In early March, 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the killer's race by analyzing his DNA. They were unsure about the science, so, before giving him the go-ahead, the task force sent Frudakis DNA swabs taken from 20 people whose race they knew and asked him to determine their races through blind testing. He nailed every single one."

Not bad for something that does not exist.

"Your guy has substantial African ancestry," said Frudakis. "He could be Afro-Caribbean or African American but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian. No chance at all."

There was a prolonged, stunned silence, followed by a flurry of questions looking for doubt but Frudakis had none. Would he bet his life on this, they wanted to know? Absolutely. In fact, he was certain that the Baton Rouge serial killer was 85 percent Sub-Saharan African and 15 percent native American.

"This means we're going to turn our investigation in an entirely different direction," Frudakis recalls someone saying. "Are you comfortable with that?"

"Yes. I recommend you do that," he said. And now, rather than later since, in the time it took Frudakis to analyze the sample, the killer had claimed his fifth victim. The task force followed Frudakis' advice and, two months later, the killer was in custody."

Not bad for something that does not exist.

2Reply

MascotJun 30

My point was that in the strict sense of biological taxonomy, races are pure subspecies resulting from population isolation. And the single detailed example you've provided there is a hybrid. One of a plethora of hybrids. Some of them much more difficult to categorize than others- more complex genotypically and/or more ambiguous phenotypically.

As a means of narrowing down a list of possible criminal suspects, the analysis is effective. I wouldn't expect it not to be. As a probative study of the significance of population ancestry as predictive of practically anything else, the study isn't even attempting that. A group of 20 individuals wouldn't even begin to qualify as a random sample for that purpose.

Reply

Gabe BJun 30

I agree but have a small bone to pick. Caucasian and "white" are not synonymous. The classical definition of Caucasian makes it a racial umbrella group; "White" people or those with European phenotypes are only a subgroup among Caucasians.

Reply

MascotJun 30

Hey, we're talking taxonomy. I'm not surprised that there are bones to be picked.

The most complete answer is that sometimes the terms White and Caucasian have been used interchangeably to denote the same group, and sometimes not. For a variety of reasons, including personal whim. It was common practice for physical anthropologists of the mid-20th century to use the words "Caucasian" and "white" as a "racial umbrella" grouping. And it was common practice for most British colonials in India to view Englishpeople as "white", and "racially different" from South Asian people.

Taxonomy is difficult enough when attempting to classify subpopulations of nonhuman animal species. When the topic turns to human subgroups, logical consistency is abandoned. Verbal language doesn't function like strings of computer code in the first place; the terms have connotative implications, not just denotative ones. So noise in the information sense is inextricable; there's no pure signal. The terms are not isolates. And the noisiness is nowhere worse than in the semantics that confuse population biology with color coding. Even the word "race" itself is glitchy: you've got a foot race- no, no, not that; the human race- wut i thot we wuz a speciez; the term "race" as an appropriation from population biology, practically always misused...

It's a mess. A what's worse, the words are convenient. One syllable, easy to spell, containing just enough signal in context to seem to carry some communicative value, and much easier to use as shorthand than paragraphs of detail to knock out the inaccuracy.

Which means that discussions like these are either carried on with terms that appear to be simple and direct, but actually generate so much confusion that people often end up table-pounding and shouting past each other- or the conversation relies on terms that are more detailed and accurate, but cumbersome and painstaking and full of sub-classes and sub-clauses and exceptions, and a long, long time is required to draw out the meaning of it. Not an easy topic for anyone allergic to applying themselves to the task.

All in all, that's a good argument for simply making the focus of the dialogue about treating people kindly and fairly, rather than getting all crazy over how to suss out each and every provision of a bunch of rules based on a pack of lies.

As for "fragility" this and "fragility" that- human fragility and insecurity is ubiquitous. The goal should be on teaching antifragility, not in singling one group or another out with noun labels like "fragile" or "snowflake", which smack of accusation and hazing, and also lend themselves just as easily to counter-accusation and being hurled back in return...everyone in involved in games like those sounds like an idiot to me. Nothing is more boring to read.

"White fragility" is an identity label. Labeling someone "fragile" is an identity label. A category tag, a pigeonhole. What needs to be discussed, questioned, and interrogated are attitudes, not people. And debate needs to acknowledge a single common standard of informal logic, including informed agreement on when those rules are broken by attempts to exploit logical fallacies to support a position. Nothing is worth doing that. It's the death of intelligence. If you're relying on a logical fallacy to support your argument, you're better off changing your mind on the issue.

1Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

It is quite true, that the Risch study used “self-identified” race. However, that should have made the study less accurate, not more accurate. In real life “self-identified” race matches genetic race with 99.86% accuracy. Not bad for something that doesn’t exist. Note that Risch found that DNA was actually less predictive of sex than race (although it was still highly accurate).

“None of those groups qualify as "races"”

Sorry, but that is just not true. Let me quote from “How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of 'Race'” (NYT, Reich)

“But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.””

And

“Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.”

Notice the last word, “real”. What does “real” mean to you? Something related to “reality” perhaps?

“For one thing, in this country, there's a high quotient of hybridity in all of them.”

You have made two important errors here. First, intermediate forms just aren’t all that important statistically. See

“Genetic variation among African Americans” in Discover magazine and

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/genetic-variation-among-african-americans

“To classify humanity is not that hard”

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/to-classify-humanity-is-not-that-hard

However, the deeper point is that the existence of intermediate forms doesn’t disprove anything. Let me offer a few examples you may be able to understand.

An infinite number of colors (wavelengths) exist between “blue” and “green”. Does that mean that “blue” and “green” don’t exist?

An infinite number of air pressures exist between sea level and outer space. Does that mean that air pressure does not exist?

An infinite number of climates exist between Point Barrow, Alaska and Guatemala City, Guatemala. Does that mean that climate does not exist?

An infinite number of human heights exists between very tall and very short. Does that mean that height does not exist?

Oceans don’t have exact boundaries (because of beeches, marshes, mangrove swamps, etc.). Does that mean the center of the Atlantic and the center of the Amazon rain forest are the same?

The list of cases is endless. However, the bottom line is clear. Intermediate forms do not negate classification.

“In most animals, "races" are associated with isolated local populations”

Humans too.

Let me quote from Reich

“African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years.”

“Remember, "race" is a pre-DNA concept.”

Gravity is pre-Newton concept. Does that mean that it does not exist?

Sex was known before X and Y chromosomes were discovered. Does that mean that sex does not exist?

Colors (as in blue and green) were known before Heisenberg and Planck. Does that mean that colors don’t exist?

The list here is endless. Science has perfected our knowledge of many things, including the biological reality (99.86%) of race.

Reply

MascotJun 30

"Science has perfected our knowledge of many things, including the biological reality (99.86%) of race."

That statement is so wrong that it's comical. Both in terms of the way it misconstrues the uses of the scientific method, and the sweeping conclusion you've drawn from the data specifics of the single study that you evidently imagine to be the last word on the subject. I can't feature the researchers agreeing with you on either score.

For your own good, don't bring up the concept of "perfected knowledge" in the company of reputable scientists. Except as an ironic jest about the pitfalls of hubris.

Reply

MascotJun 30

"intermediate forms just aren’t all that important statistically. See “Genetic variation among African Americans” in Discover magazine"

Right. The article noting that "22% of the ancestry of African Americans in the sample is European, with a standard deviation of 12%. It seems that around 10% of the African American population is more than half European in ancestry."

Every last one of them classified as members of the Black Race, by the tradition of American social consensus that was once written into laws that officially labeled them and their offspring with the caste status of chattel property.

So it isn't only my inferences that you're having trouble with.

Reply

MascotJun 30

Peter, I can tell that you're having a lot of trouble with drawing the inferences I intended in my post.

Sometimes when that happens, it's the fault of the unclarity in my writing.

And other times, it's due to the wooden-headedness of the person reading.

In this case, I'm fine with letting the lurkers be the judge.

Reply

KevinJun 30

"That study doesn't mean what you think it does."

Which really means that the study doesn't mean what you want it to mean... It's the Bell Curve all over again.

Reply

MascotJun 30

if only you could make an argument to support that projected assumption, it might draw more than a one-sentence summary dismissal from me.

Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

On of the first statements DiAngelo makes in the book is that race is a fiction. Her argument does not concern race as used in common parlance. According to her book (& CRT), people with white skin have benefited, and continue to benefit, in society to the detriment of people with dark skin. It is a critique that rests on melanin, an immutable trait. It has nothing to do with the individual (or "race") as all light skinned persons, regardless of any other characteristic beyond how much melanin they have in their skin, benefit from the systemic benefits they receive because of the color of their skin.

3Reply

Scott FrasierJun 29

The concept of race doesn’t require any differences in physical characteristics. It is just easier to enforce distinctions when those differences exist. Race consciousness can stirred anytime one wants to believe others are essentially different (inferior?) by heredity.

1Reply

Paul BreidenbachJun 30

Race isn't about melanin any more than it's about hair.

Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

s/b one, not on

Reply

CertexJun 29

Be quiet.

2Reply

Joshua ReaserJun 29

😂

Reply

Halkin KjarJun 29

If race can be distinguished visually for specific more isolated groups then once our understanding of our genomone improve we will be able to make accurate enough estimates of where a person's heritage is historical from. A paper from 1982 would not be able to understand this as it is still a very new advancement, although I do find humour that it is from Woodrow Wilson School International Center for Scholars.

Reply

JJ FlowersJun 29

Matt Taibbi is... a brilliant writer. Not only is he an inconclastic thinker, one of the few journalist in this country highlight systemic corruption in the government, banking and the media, the most important stories, but he is quite simply a fine writer. Hilarious to boot.

6Reply

SkepticJun 30

Fearless, too.

1Reply

Dan 🏴11 hr

For those crying for an alternative to DiAngelo, try decades of scholarship on the "coloniality of power," "whiteness studies," and James Baldwin. I've also seen a lot of good recent internet essays mostly from people outside/beyond the North American black-white binaries DiAngelo seems stuck in.

Reply

Ben TurnerJun 29

"White Fragility has a simple message: there is no such thing as a universal human experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but only by our racial category."

I'm not sure how anyone could take that away from DiAngelo's book. That's certainly not what I got from it.

Just to summarize some of her main points, which most of the people here don't understand:

1. Racism is a SYSTEM that benefits white people over others. (It is not simply a matter of individual racial prejudices, as some of the commenters here imply)

2. Racism is taught from an early age, with young people as young as three or four understanding that it's better to be white in our society.

3. Racism is a pervasive characteristic of our society, with blacks receiving less per pupil for education, exclusion of black people from buying homes in more desirable neighborhoods, larger numbers of black people in prison, harsher treatment by the criminal justice system for the same crimes, blacks more likely to be exposed to environmental dangers, and white people when driving even less likely to yield to black pedestrians than whites.

4. Although whites commonly claim things like "I don't see skin color" or "I was taught by my parents that racism is wrong, their actions say otherwise. Whites still overwhelmingly choose to live apart from blacks, using racially coded language like "good neighborhoods" and "good schools."

5. "White fragility" is how many whites respond when you point these things out, and even name

things like white supremacy or white privilege. It's a defense mechanism meant to neutralize the challenge, and often involves defensiveness or emotional outbursts. (I've noticed this as well, that white people often become more emotional than black people do during discussions of racism. They clearly have a hard time talking about it.)

DiAngelo's book is about racism and white privilege. She's not saying that other forms of privilege don't exist, and I'm pretty sure that she would acknowledge that is possible to be privileged in some ways and not so in others. But she does make a pretty compelling case that racism is pervasive in our society. And I can only say that as a white person, a lot of what she says rings true from my own experiences.

6Reply

BuckmanResJun 29

"Racism is a SYSTEM that benefits white people over others."

Wrong. Hating someone because of their ethnicity or skin color is the definition of racism. It is not a system.

Nobody benefits from being racist. It breeds hatred and further divides people along tribal lines while holding back all of humanity.

Unfortunately there is an entire industry built around perpetuating racial divisions that is growing in power and gaining gullible followers.

3Reply

Ben TurnerJun 30

Sorry, but you're just wrong.

2Reply

JBird4049Jun 30

The very racial terms and categories being used are four centuries old inventions of the often slave owning, but always wealthy, elites in their successful efforts to divide and control the lower classes of whites from the black slaves and the natives.

To posit that racism and the artificially created racial group identities are the most defining thing about being human and American is to support ideologies like Nazism and that of the Ku Klux Klan. It is a poisonous, pernicious lie.

2Reply

angelOJun 30

"'Racism' is defined as whatever I'm not, at any given moment"

1Reply

Truth GunJun 30

You should apologize because he is right.

Reply

Unladen ParrotJun 29

On point 4, you don't believe that white parents (like most all other parents) generally want the best (safest and inculcating the most learning and social development) schools and neighborhoods because of love for their family? You seem to be saying that doing the best by your own children is wrong because of larger societal patterns which emerge, but the parent/child bond and duty of care is more sacrosanct than any duty to act against systemic racism.

3Reply

Ben TurnerJun 29

I'm saying that parents equate absence of black people as a safe environment for their children. And there's plenty of evidence to show that white people don't want to live near black people. The whole white flight phenomenon in the 1950's is good evidence of that, as is the phenomenon of redlining, part of which was to prevent black people from buying homes in certain neighborhoods and still happens to this day. Redlining and racial covenants are one of the reasons why black families haven't accumulated nearly as much wealth as white families on average over generations. And it's compounded by the fact that schools are funded by property taxes, meaning that white children on average receive far more money per pupil than do black children.

1Reply

Truth GunJun 30

"And there's plenty of evidence to show that white people don't want to live near black people. "

Link?

Reply

Ben TurnerJun 30

https://www.theroot.com/new-study-shows-white-people-dont-like-living-near-blac-1825544447

1Reply

OlafJul 1

White fragility is not how whites respond it is a rhetorical mechanism for preventing any response apart from acquiescence or submission.

Reply

SeanJun 30

Hi, Ben. You can tell that there's a difference between 'racism' and 'recognizing different races exist', right? Because the definition you're ascribing to seems to be fundamentally blurring that distinction to the benefit of absolutely no one. The inevitable conclusion is that everyone is inescapably damned, one way or another, regardless of intent. What, then, is the 'end game' to fighting a re-imagined idea of racism that can't ever die? Is perpetual anger, shame, and self-loathing for all really the common denominator we should be striving for? That idea should strike you as nothing less than demonic. It "almost" seems like people need for there to be division, indeed.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

When I was a kid, my favorite TV show was "Amos and Andy." Too funny so they banned it.

Reply

CindyJun 29

I always get the feelings when reading your pieces that you’d be perfectly fine with all of this craziness if they’d only stick to targeting conservatives. For example, why complain about ruining the life of the lady from the New York Times who got fired for wearing actual blackface to make fun of Megan Kelly, who never did but had her career destroyed simply for asking why people couldn’t dress as characters.

Can’t you see that these unfair and unhinged attacks have been happening to conservatives for at least a decade now?

Reply

SkepticJun 29

Cindy, I'm a conservative. My take is that Matt is trying to get the broadest possible audience to understand how insane and dangerous things have gotten, to help stop it. Some people he's trying to reach think all conservatives are evil racists and deserve whatever they get. He makes the point that even if you think that, this has still gotten wildly out of hand. Whether this is intended or not,his seemingly gratuitous anti-Trump barbs (Art of the Deal like Anna Karenina) may also get people reading and thinking, who would otherwise pass.

YMMV, but I think we're in such a dangerous moment, whatever he has to do to get people to read and think about this, I'm all for.

6Reply

CindyJun 29

I’ll accept that explanation, though I dislike the need for exceptions that seem to imply that conservatives deserve the double standard.

Reply

RemJun 30

It's a hard habit to get out of I think. People aren't going to retroactively apply these standards to people they previously "cancelled", but we don't need them to right now. We just need all sane people to recognize that this has to stop and it has to stop now. We can work out the grievances and differences later.

1Reply

sister_hJun 29

Matt Taibbi, this is a white fragility tantrum. How pathetic. Just lost a lot of respect for you.

1Reply

CertexJun 29

Racist.

6Reply

OlafJul 1

There’s a watertight argument.

1Reply

John OrbanJun 29

Best $40 I ever spent!

7Reply

Deborah CohenJun 29

I just subscribed. Thank you Matt. My parents were socialists during McCarthy.

7Reply

DNJul 2

We all must 'do what we do'. Here Matty goes, doin' what he does best; cut through all the crap. Kudo's ~

1Reply

Taibbi rape farmJun 29

We get it, you're a racist eapist, no need to keep hammering your point home

1Reply

RemJun 30

Do people pay you or do your own personal issues guide you?

5Reply

Gabe BJun 30

Seriously, get some help you lunatic.

2Reply

ClintJun 30

Thanks for this oped Matt been following you for a long time and you mentioned many of the problems I had with this book.

The problem as highlighted in the comments is any criticism of the book means you must be racist.

Aka the witch floats, she's a witch.

5Reply

Patrick CapriolaJul 1

Your work is masterful. As an academic who has taught in these institutions, I can say your analysis is accurate. In fact, behind closed doors, academia is even worse than you describe. There is no social science data to support any of the "White issues" of privilege, fragility, guilt, etc. It's all made up by low-level humanities "scholars" who are incapable of using data to support their arguments. Instead, their works are dominated by story-telling, anecdotes, and opinions. The academy was supposed to be better than this. The invisible knapsack is the perfect example. In the 40 years since it was written few of the 50 items on that list have been substantiated by data as true for the reasons posited. It's just an observer's thoughts, unchecked by the rigorous scientific processes of the enlightenment that make intellectualism a worthy endeavor. The world would be a better place if Thomas Sowell's works were promoted equitably, juxtaposing his analyses alongside works like D'Angelo's. In this space of true equity, the equity of ideas, the cream could rise to the top unencumbered by the thought police.

3Reply

J FisherJun 30

I'm surprised at this latest newsletter and its angry, all-or-nothing tone, as I tend to agree with Mr. Taibbi on many issues and normally find him to be balanced and on-target—and dispassionate. I don't disagree with everything he says in this passage, rather it’s his easy dismissal of the book that has me bemused. I have read the book and it spoke exactly to my experiences as a person of color in my particular world, sometimes it was as if Ms. DiAngelo had been in the room recording conversations I’ve had. I find it refreshing to have a “white” woman as an ally and not be alone in recognizing problematic, biased language and behavior and stale stereotypes. For me, this book is a must read for ALL people - not just "white", and its value is in stopping the ways SOME “white” people have of shutting down conversations about race or equity entirely when they don’t want to look at their own participation in racism and they don’t like thinking about it or don’t feel responsible. Again, this book’s value to me, is just to open up a conversation and stop it from getting stuck at the “But I’m Not Racist” phase.

If some folks choose to use this book to work on themselves, so be it. All roads lead to Rome.

I take responsibility for the ways I as a person of color have bought into or accepted or perpetuated stereotypes and beliefs, not only as a person of color, but as a woman. I believe “black” folks have work to do as well, not all, perhaps, just as not all “white” folks have work to do. For instance, in my family there was a strong leaning and preference toward lighter skin color that I inherited and have since worked to question and challenge and be aware of.

There is work to be done in this country on many levels, jobs, the economy, education, health, that affect everyone.

I haven’t seen any recent bans on the books Mr. Taibbi mentions – I hope he will back that up with specific examples. I stopped in writing this to do a web search and checked in with my local library (it’s New York City so it’s rather a big one). If they ban it I will certainly protest that. But I don’t think the “n-word’s” presence in literature is the real issue.

I listen to all sides before I ultimately make up my own mind about what I experience. After hating her without actually having read anything she’d written or heard a word she said, I gave Candace Owens a listen a few weeks ago. Some things I agreed with (though this was before her comments about George Floyd, which more than anything make her unintelligent in the sense of knowing when to keep one’s mouth shut…unless it was some bizarre ploy to gain a specific set of followers). I’ve started watching Fox News and find I agree with them--sometimes. I stopped watching MSNBC when I realized it wasn’t doing me any good to indulge in my need to hear others bash Trump.

All of this, all the bashing and trashing of things we don’t agree with, has sadly become the norm in this country, and I expected Mr. Taibbi to be above that. We just need facts, then we can make our own decisions. The problem with being on the receiving end of the newsletter is that I've chosen to be talked at without the opportunity of engagement.

5Reply

angelOJun 30

This: "I have read the book and it spoke exactly to my experiences as a person of color in my particular world, sometimes it was as if Ms. DiAngelo had been in the room recording conversations I’ve had."

And that's my bottom line objection to this uncharacteristically value-free, spittle-flecked post. Taibbi's emphatically discounting as myth things that I experience every day of my life. I know from direct observation just how wrong he is. And of course it's more than a little ironic that he's exhibiting the very fragility that DiAngelo describes.

1Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 30

Angel, as a person of color there is no way you could have the experience of "white fragility" in your own life.

At most you've had experiences with white folks that you attribute to "white fragility". You are no doubt right in some instances, perhaps most, but as a human being it is a certainty that you can't be right 100% of the time. No human being possesses that kind of perfection.

Of course given the realities of racism in the US, assuming that all white folks are racist is likely the safer choice for Black folks than assuming the opposite.

Nevertheless, it remains an assumption, not a fact.

2Reply

Caek IsloveJul 1

^^ black fragility

1Reply

spinmasterflexJun 30

He didn't discount anything.

1Reply

Truth GunJun 29

Centuries of the White Man's incredible success has caused many to implode, hence this book.

3Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

Oh, you forgot to add a clause in that sentence. Here, I'll fix it for you:

"Centuries of the White Man's incredible success on the backs of conquered and oppressed peoples......

Reply

Truth GunJun 30

What bizarro reality are you talking about? Electricity was discovered on the backs of the conquered? Penicillin was produced using oppressed people? Who did Bill Gates 'conquer' to create Windows? Wireless internet? Air conditioning? Facebook?

To make your insane correlations requires an immense amount of intellectual dishonesty. Good luck taking your theories to the Marketplace of Ideas. History has shown us that the ridiculous eventually will get spit out. Or is the Marketplace of Ideas also a 'conqueror who oppresses people?'

5Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

You're obviously one of the abysmally ignorant White Kultur Kampf Warriors who apparently believe that all knowledge and progress came from Western Europeans and their descendants. Our entire number system and therefore all of mathematics and original theories of astronomy, geometry physics came from much earlier work and discoveries by Arabs, Greeks and Egyptians.

Reply

Truth GunJun 30

"original theories of astronomy, geometry physics came from much earlier work and discoveries by Arabs, Greeks and Egyptians."

Kudos! Wonderful. I am impressed by all early innovations all the way back to the wheel.

You hurl blanket ad hominems at me? This is how you have a conversation? That is weird. And calling me 'white?' Is that supposed to be derogatory? I am not calling you a racist (I can't read your mind) but I am asking it.

Reply

George MJun 29

Matt omits the fact that DiAngelo has embraced a rigid Marxist framework. He describes it but does not call it for what it is. By her definition, we are each imprisoned by our place on the social, economic and sexual spectrum. White people can never escape their racism and blacks can never be racist. This definition of the rules dramatically inhibits behavior and actions.

5Reply

deletedJun 29

deleted

Peter SchaefferJun 29

The USA has 100 (or is it 1000) Robin Diangelo's for every Nazi. Worse, all of the media, the universities, and increasingly big corporations are controlled by the Diangelo types. Get real.

6Reply

AWJohnJun 29

I know the reality of the US and thank god im not living there now, its the article that is the third time I read it, not the fucking book, and yes we are doomed w/ this so called democrats, they've been exposed and the only answer they have is censorship and stupidity, but beyond that and the most important, keeping the 2 party choice so Americans be always trapped.

2Reply

DMichaelsJun 29

Not too many, if any, marches by Nazis or the far-right here in the States. But I'm sure you felt self-satisfied and affirmed watching this one. But the book is still dehumanizing and simple-minded and I truly feel sorry for anyone who feels compelled to read it more than once.

2Reply

AWJohnJun 29

I didnt red the book 3 times, i've red this article 3 times already, the book i wont read it for sure

Reply

Tom WorsterJun 29

It's race politics re-imagined under the immovable ideology of consumerism and individualism. Instead of solidarity, sacrifice and struggle towards a vision of true emancipation, it's all about ME. The treatment for White Fragility involves nothing more than investing in oneself. And I doubt that any Fragile White is going to be a significantly better person after DiAngelo's course of self-improvement, even if they get better at scolding other Fragile Whites.

5Reply

L M LewisJun 30

Short-circuiting solidarity appears to be a prime directive for elites and prospective elites in a number of professions, including education. Putting the focus on self-examination diverts attention from the destructive architecture of our society and government. That architecture not only disadvantages people who are non-white (or female or poor); it also punishes those who see the light and propose authentic reforms--the social activist equivalents of government whistleblowers, excommunicated for social heresy. In that world, the support of powerful elites is a reliable indicator that a book poses no threat to the status quo.

1Reply

MirzaJun 29

Taibbi really hits with this piece. It was such a pleasure to read him hate read a book. Its like when Eminem released killshot, best he's done in years cause he hated on the other dude so well.

6Reply

Rey AllenJun 29

Incisive piece. I'm extremely glad to have an influential voice like yours calling these people out for their social totalitarianism. Though, I fear your voice will be drowned out by the others who go along with this nonsense. The manner in which people are sheepishly accepting their "penance" is alarming, and I hope people snap out of it. Right now, it's too easy to be marked as an apostate of the "righteous" social order by simply saying anything against the grain.

6Reply

Valerie TaricoJun 30

Yes!!! https://valerietarico.com/2020/02/21/racism-is-real-but-the-concept-of-white-fragility-could-use-a-closer-look/

3Reply

LouisJun 29

An absolutely spot on, incredibly written article.

6Reply

Joshua ReaserJun 29

Matt says, "Have the people hyping this impressively crazy book actually read it?" The answer, of course, is no. I'm in education and administrators are continuously ordering and distributing books they have never read, and never will read, because even in education, so many people don't do the follow-up. But they're savvy for fealing the political winds, so they're quick to go with the flow. I mean, Matt's question: "What’s easier, giving up business models based on war, slave labor, and regulatory arbitrage, or benching Aunt Jemima?" That says it all. And any half-way serious reader who has read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird knows that the people banning them are opportunists. But so many don't read books, so assholes get away with it.

6Reply

MascotJun 30

Aliteracy is a larger problem than any of the cheap insights proffered by ideological extremists, because the lack of intellectual exercise and the resulting flaccidity makes the aliterate easy prey for anyone with a fast line of talk and a set of easy answers. Aliteracy has the ability to reduce people who once had the potential to grow into intelligent, self-aware independent thinkers to the status of the Eloi.

If you haven't read a nonfiction book outside of those required for your working life since you graduated from school, you need to begin. Now.

Reply

JoeJun 29

I always enjoy your point of view on things. I had to read this book a committee I’m on at work. I had the same skepticism as you express here. I think the problem is, as another commenter put it, with the “cultural authoritarianism that comes along with these types of developments. There is absolutely racism in our society. We are a country who’s history has been defined by “identity politics” as white male land owners had a monopoly on political power and other groups like women and African Americans needed to fight for their rights. This legacy is still with us. So to pretend like we live in a country where there is racial equity is to live in denial. That is what racism is about. EQUITY. As long as there is inequity based on race, there is work to be done to identify policies that causes this inequity and to change them. That’s why I think the problem is more with the “cancel culture” and extreme non-negotiable statements that do not allow any room for nuance or learning. We need to reflect upon our assumptions and have constructive conversations rather than hunting down people to “cancel” and calling ourselves social justice “warriors”.

6Reply

jojoJul 1

jojo2 min

I despair that Taibbi will EVER get it...That he will ever "see" the Bigger Picture.

"At a time of catastrophe and national despair, when conservative nationalism is on the rise and violent (Leftist) confrontation on the streets is becoming commonplace, it’s extremely suspicious that the books politicians, the press, university administrators, and corporate consultants alike are asking us to read are urging us to put race even more at the center of our identities...It’s almost like someone thinks there’s a benefit to keeping people divided."

Yeah, "almost".

"White Fragility" is simply the Mein Kampf of the New World Order in a global War pitting Globalists/Collectivists/Communists against the patriots of the Western Nation-States.

Here is a sample of the torrent of racist anti-white MSM propaganda Opinion/“news” stories coming along in my Yahoo news feed over the last several days. See if any of you blinkered, pale Progressives™ can 'spot the messaging' at work.

Angelina Jolie Acknowledges Her WHITE PRIVILEGE While Raising a Black Child

Inside the New Push to Expose America’s WHITE SUPREMACIST Cops

1200 Public Health Experts Advocate Mass Gatherings Because "White Supremacy" Is Bigger Threat Than COVID-19

America's overdue reckoning with WHITE SUPREMACY: 'We have allowed evil to flourish'

What I've Learned About WHITE SUPREMACY as a WHITE Person and How We Can Fight It

Here's What WHITE PRIVILEGE Actually Means, and How You Can Use Yours To Help Others

Covert Racism And WHITE PRIVILEGE Are Perpetuated In Grocery Stores And Restaurants Every Day

SYSTEMIC RACISM shows that America is not an exceptional nation

WHITE PEOPLE like me must not give in to 'Anti-RACISM Attention Deficit Disorder'

How to Explain WHITE PRIVILEGE to Your WHITE Working-Class Friends and Family

How WHITE PEOPLE Can Help Fight SYSTEMIC RACISM in Health Care

Rush Limbaugh Tells Breakfast Club: 'I Don't Feel Like I'm A WHITE SUPREMACIST'

Racial Microaggressions Are A Macro Problem, And WHITE People Need To Stop

TRUMP DEMEANS Female Black Reporter As She Challenges Him On Black Unemployment

Fossil fuels’ rise and reign is a story of WHITE SUPREMACY

More and more actors are accusing 'Glee' star Lea Michele of being 'unpleasant,' 'a nightmare,' and guilty of 'RACIST micro-aggressions'

As America faces racial reckoning, I'm checking my WHITE PRIVILEGE, and here's why you should too

Shaun Robinson Calls Out Ex-Access Hollywood Co-Anchor Billy Bush for 'Pain' His 'WHITE PRIVILEGE' Caused Her

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Are Quietly Taking Meetings to Get Involved With Black Lives Matter"

10 Anti-RACIST Podcasts and Talks That Are Helping Me Become a Better ALLY...It's on me to get more EDUCATED™—not my Black friends, acquaintances, or coworkers.

Watch Stephen ‘tWitch’ Boss & Allison Holker’s Heartbreaking Reality Check on WHITE PRIVILEGE

This viral Tik Tok sums up exactly what WHITE PRIVILEGE is

Titans coach Vrabel acknowledges the 'blind spot' of WHITE PRIVILEGE

Killer Mike on How WHITE PEOPLE Can Help: ‘It Is Being a Part of Fixing It Always’

"I'm a doctor in Minneapolis treating coronavirus patients. Until RACISM is abolished, it will always be a greater threat to justice than this virus."

Breaking down my mom’s WHITE feminism with black labor

Tia Mowry on Her Father’s WHITE PRIVILEGE: “It Was Very Clear to Me”

This Is What I Want To Tell My WHITE Professors When They Ask, 'How Are You Today?'

News Analysis: Isolated more than ever, TRUMP is left in crisis by his own missteps

Charlamagne Tha God On SYSTEMIC RACISM And How Reparations Can Lead To Economic Justice

Jesse Jackson says white Americans are finally 'awakening' to the nation's racial crisis

America's overdue reckoning with WHITE SUPREMACY: 'We have allowed evil to flourish'

Kourtney Kardashian Says She Has a ''Responsibility'' to Teach Her Kids About Their WHITE PRIVILEGE

Are WHITE Women Finally Waking Up?

A black Adidas designer is calling on the company to APOLOGIZE for its complacency on RACISM

Covert RACISM And WHITE PRIVILEGE Are Perpetuated In Grocery Stores And Restaurants Every Day

WHITE Women, I’m Glad You’re Showing Up. But I’m Not Sure I Trust You Just Yet.

We Need To Address Systemic Racism Inside The Fashion Industry, Right Now

Being Nice To People Of Color Doesn’t Mean You’re Anti-Racist

Matthew McConaughey Asks the Only Question WHITE People Should Be Asking Right Now

6 Things WHITE People Say That Highlight Their PRIVILEGE

Ben & Jerry’s takes a hard line against WHITE SUPREMACY and some buyers freak the hell out

André Leon Talley Says Anna Wintour's Vogue Apology "Came Out of the Space of WHITE PRIVILEGE”

Jessica Mulroney: I Do, Redo removed from TV after ‘WHITE PRIVILEGE’ row

Dear WHITE PEOPLE: Being an ALLY isn't always what you think

Breaking with party, GOP senator says rebuke of TRUMP 'necessary'

'There isn't a moral bone in TRUMP body' - Bradley calls U.S. president 'completely empty'

"It can always get worse for TRUMP. Who thought he’d hide out in the bunker?"

White people to finally face up to our failure to eradicate the WHITE SUPREMACY that infects our society. As my friend and anti-RACISM educator Lisa Sharon Harper says, “The only course of action for WHITE PEOPLE now is REPENTance and repair.”

2Reply

sister_hJun 29

Matt Taibbi, I've never seen your thoughts on whiteness and white supremacy. Have any?

2Reply

CertexJun 29

'White supremacy' is the new buzzphrase used by racists, whose meaning has changed significantly over the last few years. It used to be 'white privilege,' but that wasn't extreme enough.

5Reply

David ReedyJun 29

white supremacy is a myth in America

Want proof?

Looks up average income by race

Whites are not at the top of the list and the list is perfectly inverse to the single parent rate

3Reply

jvmackJun 30

2018 Median Household Income (United States Census Bureau, 2018 and 2019 Annual Social and Economic Supplements)

All races/ethnicities: $62,626

Asian: $83,376

White, not Hispanic: $69,851

Hispanic (any race): $51,389

Black: $40,324

1Reply

LastRedoubtJul 2

For all those pointing about "White Fragility - see the term "Kafkatrap"

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

1Reply

Snake DoctorJun 30

Is this article is just another unwarranted and ludicrous assertion purporting to represent an analytical disquisition and discourse with anti-establishment intertextuality followed by a seamless 'comment' thread full of pseudo-sapient nonintellectual sesquipedalians vainly attempting to implement the leverage of multidimensional platforms filled with exuberant verbosity and garrulousness combined with bombastic loquaciousness, creating grandiose ad hominem confabulations hedging on obscurantism antithetical to efficacious communications for the purposes of diverting the discussion and/or to challenge the opponent's vocabulary comprehension, thereby inviting reciprocating opprobrium and vituperation rendering irrelevant idiosyncratic germaneness to an otherwise saliently enlightened subject?

4Reply

Morris PatakyJun 30

Based on your writing, you must have been "educated" in the social sciences at a "first rate" university. Good luck with that.

4Reply

Snake DoctorJun 30

Matter of fact, I never finished the 9th grade. Went straight into MIT, worked 40 years in high technology and retired a fortunate man. As my comment pointedly reflected, now I just sit back, eat popcorn and watch the reality show.

Reply

Jerry HJun 30

Even educated people are stupid. I notice you didn't include "graduated" MIT. Good try dropout.

Reply

OlafJul 1

No.

1Reply

KurtJun 30

5 stars: would “I see what you did there” again

1Reply

Snake DoctorJun 30

See how easy it is to bait the gullible. LOL!

Reply

Dennis TopczewskiJun 30

Thesaurus much?

Reply

Veritas VincetJun 29

Conservative nationalism is on the rise? Where? What are you talking about? Who are these conservatives? Has anyone been able to actually ferret out these boogie men, the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo racial terrorists? Where are they? Are they out there defending the 'racist' statues or waging war against the CHOP in Seattle? Nope. Face it, the left has won. It has conquered the land from coast to coast. It controls the culture and the discourse. Reap the whirlwind.

1Reply

RemJun 29

It's not "the left" that won you doofus. It's the neoliberal oligarchy using the language of social justice to enforce this current insane culture of snitching on each other over minor infractions to keep existing structures in place. Don't you dare question who's funding these movements! Our corporate class sold us out (mostly to China), and the sooner conservatives get on board with this truth rather than throw their hands up as loudly and flamboyantly as possible, the sooner we can do something about it. They're in a desperate position as well, that's why they're fighting tooth and nail. We need to convince sane liberals to if not vote for Trump, at least don't usher in a puppet president in Biden. That's literally the end of the republic if it happens. For all the hyperbole around Trump, he's been a dedicated enemy of the ruling neoliberal class for some time now.

5Reply

tom mitchellJun 29

Gun sales have picked up momentum during the virus. We need to make sure gun owners can hit the side of a barn, know how to clean, load, and store their weapons. The Swiss army used to to require military service, sent every soldier home with their own gun after leaving. Convinced Hitler not to invade after fall of France. It's interesting that a bullet has no race ID; one size fits all.

2Reply

SkutchJun 30

WTF is that going to do against the US military, state and local police, not to mention all the alphabet soup federal agencies ? You're about a century too late.

Reply

tom mitchellJun 30

We're coming at this from different angles. I don't expect the local or state authorities or alphabet supers to any longer be available, or even necessarily to exist. The logical consequence is that safety issues will devolve to individuals, families, and associations of individuals and families. The logic says we'll all be on our own to figure it out, not that some monolithic government power will send tanks down Main St.. Abandonment, not coercion.

1Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

"We need to convince sane liberals..." Gotta find them first. Tall order. Seems oxymoronic.

Reply

SkepticJun 30

Taibbi is one, and from the sounds of it, I think we have quite a few on this thread too.

But Taibbi is not just gathering sane people. I think he's moving the mental boundaries a bit.

And by the way, I weigh his views very carefully, even though I'm conservative and he's a Bernie supporter.

1Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

As an independent critical thinker, I avoid labeling myself and I'm on the alert for groupthink of any kind. But I think supporting Bernie is an endorsement of socialism. Can't abide that. Good last name tho.

Reply

AldenJun 30

^^^^^True statement. The people elected to preserve and defend the constitution have allowed this crap to happen. All is not lost. Ultimately the people will have to fight this battle, and there will be bloodshed. The demands of BLM and the manifesto they endorse is a clear cut swipe at destroying this country. Sadly though, people are afraid to speak up because of the likelihood of being shouted down, branded a racist, blah blah blah..

BE prepared because the local government, police, nor Uncle Sam are gonna have your back

Reply

theduke89Jun 30

That this woman was college-educated in the United States should disturb everyone. It's not education anymore. It's rote indoctrination.

4Reply

t. koenigJun 30

Who's the publisher who signed up for this trash?

4Reply

Ann BJul 2

Thank you Matt for this very sensible thoughtful report, and for all your diligent hard work to give us journalism worthy of the name. I cannot fathom why the white fragility author has been given such guru status, and I agree with Matt's points.

Moreover, there are so many others with infinitely greater wisdom and guidance to offer about the nature of human beings and how they interact. Going back to the ancient teachings for a start - still shared by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and still found practical by many millions of us - that a spiritual God made everyone in His/Her own image and likeness, that we are all equal, and that we are all endowed with the spiritual qualities of God ('image and likeness') such as the ability to love, an innate ability to discern good from evil, etc. Nor are such ideas limited to these religions. Indeed, this is the most fundamental reason why freedom to think one's own thoughts, and to engage in free speech and respectful debate.

On the issue of race relations in modern times specifically, I think it quite preposterous that this author shows so little respect for MLK and Nelson Mandela, who shared these underlying convictions, and whose practical wisdom and understanding in these matters is infinitely greater.

For anyone interested, the fascinating book 'Playing the Enemy' by John Carlin provides valuable insights into how Mandela managed so far beyond anyone's expectations or even hope, to save the new SA from civil war - into which so many people tried to drag it - and to bring people together who had been so very far apart.

1Reply

Gary Carl TechentienJun 30

I read the book and found it deeply enlightening. I respect Matt's work tremendously, but his characterization of White Fragility's message as being "there is no such thing as a universal human experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but only by our racial category," is far, far from what I took from the book. What it said to me was this: "Look, the United States is a racist country. It was founded on racist slavery. It's constitution was steeped in that same racism. So even though we've come a long way since 1865, most white people continue to be unaware of the fact that whiteness--white values, and white people--are the norm here, which leaves blackness as abnormal. It is this basic presumption that underlies and perpetuates the ongoing and often invisible inequalities that black people live with every day." I'm going to have to disagree with Matt on this one. I'm white. I teach a mixture of black and white urban high school kids. I'm pretty smart. Smart enough to have become a lawyer and practiced for 15 year before teaching high school by choice (you may think that not-so-smart), and frankly, I've always figured Matt Tiabbi is a lot smarter than me, so maybe he's got insights that are beyond my chops. Another author I read often and greatly respect is Glenn Greenwald, and he disliked White Fragility as well and seemed to see negative things in it I hadn't seen. Bottom line though, I thought it was a damned insightful and extremely helpful book and I've recommended it to many people. Some agree with me and thank me for the recommendation. Some go mysteriously silent. Hmm.

3Reply

Christopher BuckleyJun 29

I'm a Trump supporter, and I don't care that you dislike Trump. You are as smart and intellectually honest as they come. You're almost single-handedly saving journalism from itself.

5Reply

BrookeJun 30

I personally have not read this book but I have read several summaries and threads talking about it because I am debating on if I should give this author the gift of my money to read her opinions. That's an economic, non-race related lesson for another day, but I do have serious questions about the book though.

Does it offer any valid responses as to what to do to "fix" the racism problem on a personal and ultimately on a national scale? Everyone talks about being "less white" and one sad attempt at apologizing for an offensive joke, but neither of these are real solutions. It's like telling a crazy person to just not be crazy, or a depressed person they can be happy again by just not being depressed.

Is there any real value to be found in this book?

I am a white, conservative, mother of 6 and I take a very critical view of what I have seen take place in the country I love. I have to teach my children what to believe because that is my job as their mother (not the schools or the government's job). I have seen racism against blacks, even had my own father beat me for dating a half-black kid in highschool. I have also been on the receiving end of racism. I have been called every name under the sun and treated like trash because black teammates, black opponents, and their black parents couldn't cope with a red-headed white girl actually being a better basketball player. This reverse racism even continued into college basketball. I know my own personal experience with race. I know the Christian ideal of how to handle it. The problem I run into is that where I live, most of the black Americans do not fit what you see online and on the news. My neighbors and friends who are black hate what is happening in the country. They agree the racism exists but disagree with the "lies they are spreading online." Those are the words of my boss who is also black and married to a Hispanic woman. Our oldest boys both graduated high school this year. I am trying to figure it out I thought being in the heart of Texas, I would be in the perfect place to ask those around me to find out more but all I got was more questions. I really feel this movement has very little to do with race but with something else. Why else would there be such a disconnect between what these "activists" are saying and what my real flesh and blood, black friends, black neighbors, and black coworkers are saying?

3Reply

SkutchJun 30

The whole idea is to make sure no one knows what to think or do. This is an economic reset and they need cover to pull it off. I have no idea what's going on either but I do believe that it is very much on purpose.

4Reply

RamiJun 30

“most of the black Americans do not fit what you see online “

You know, I keep reading in the news, and the blogs, and those tupid Twitter verse and Facebook verse How people refer to “2 Americas”, the red and the blue. I think the real two Americas are the ones in the internet and the one outside of it.

Just today I had an experience in Walmart: 2 angry black women, poor disgusting service. One angry “white trash” woman just as bad and disgusting as the other two, two not angry but not pleasant either white women, and then the greeter, a senior black gentleman who on my way out told me “thanks for coming to Walmart, you have a great day now, ok?. He was the one who saved the day for his company. So so sweet and kind and gentle. Was it an issue of black and whites? No, it was an issue of individuals. This is the kind of things why media can’t be trusted.

3Reply

QuaestorJun 29

"It takes a special kind of ignorant for an author to choose an example that illustrates the mathematical opposite of one’s intended point, but this isn’t uncommon in White Fragility, which may be the dumbest book ever written."

I haven't read "White Fragility". I have read "Mein Kampf". I thought it was the dumbest book ever written, which may not be true now. Odd how both writers take the position that race is the most important aspect of our existence, and both divide the world into the Good Race (Aryans and Blacks respectively) and the Evil Race. (Jews abetted by their Negro and Slavic servitors according to Hitler; Whites and their Asian and Hispanic servitors according to Robin DiAngelo) Very odd indeed. It seems that if you start with fascist assumptions something like the dumbest book ever written is already simmering in your fevered mind.

5Reply

JorgeJun 30

Another thoughtful article that should prompt genuine dialog among well-intentioned, anti-racist human beings ... except we are told by the ascendant Crits that "human rights" is just another example of false consciousness and a badge of white supremacy...

4Reply

AldenJun 30

How much do you wanna bet Robin probably thinks it's a cool idea to allow transgender strippers to conduct story time for 5 year olds in full drag?

Vapid commentary by twits like Robin are easy to find in today's world. Would love to see her and Ben Shapiro locked in a room together for an hour, and see who emerges with their wits about them. It should be pay per view. It's hard for white people to discuss racism? Not really. What's difficult is dealing with all the non-sense you get when you share your opinion on the topic, then be told to take a knee. Notice how her book doesn't require black people to take responsibility for many of their societal ills? Just blame whitey because they're racist, whether they know it or not. Couldn't possibly be the charlatans they vote into office.

4Reply

OlafJul 1

Pretty much summed up by the competing mantras that “white silence is violence” but also that “white people need to be quiet it is not our story”.

Reply

angelOJun 29

If the goal was to illustrate the phenomenon of white fragility, Bravo, Matt! But if you're trying to debunk DiAngelo's thesis, your butthurt rant fails miserably as "reporting" and as commentary. But in its vacuous rage, it does, sadly, reveal a lot about you.

Let's face it: "Don't Shoot," notwithstanding, you're just not all that interested in justice for black people. It's obviously just an issue to you; one that you've invested little or no time in researching.

Stick to writing about what you know and what you care about.

4Reply

DOUGJun 30

speaking of butt hurt.

I find it amusing that the actual racists don't know they are racist

You, for example

all emotion

no facts

3Reply

AlJun 30

Angel is just another brainwashed tool that sells out her/his own people to virtue signal and be a good little submissive sheep. And F**K "justice for black people." Either you believe in impartial justice for all or you are full of s**t.

Hey Angel, just post a picture of yourself kneeling, shining the black man's shoes while apologizing and begging for forgiveness. Then you'll be a good little white person!

1Reply

Dr. DannJun 30

I guess you never read "I Can't Breathe." Author: Matt Taibbi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Can%27t_Breathe:_A_Killing_on_Bay_Street

1Reply

DaevidJun 30

maybe you should re-read "Don't Shoot" lol.

1Reply

W.B. ReevesJun 29

Let's face it, you really can't read other people's minds, so it would be wise to stop pretending that you can.

1Reply

Caek IsloveJul 1

We should come up with a catchy academic term for you crawling all over this comment thread crying about it..

Reply

The Aggressive ProgressiveJun 30

Agreed angelO. I value Matt's perspective on many things. His Russiagate take for example. However, this seemingly infantile rant would have been better served filed away from public view under the heading "know my limitations."

Reply

Gaspatcho Crem'e D'MenthJun 30

Why does it have to be butthurt? Whenever I hear that it puts me in mind of a child like white apologist millinial that never learned to curse so they made up little potty words in place of say fuck you?

Reply

WolfgangerlJun 29

Nobody writes a pan like MT, you gotta admit. Remember Flathead? As for the content, he importantly points out that all this psychological self-flagellation plays into the hands of Bezos, Dimon, and the like. They love taking a knee as long as the exploitation can continue. Wonder if MT is familiar with Ben Hunt. His latest post "What is permissable" reminded me of MT's columns on Finance in RS a lot.

5Reply

c1ueJun 29

Thank you, Matt Taibbi, for continuing to call out bullshit no matter who spews it.

The "eating of their own" you refer to is only accelerating. It is ironic, or perhaps emblematic, that most of the new top shelf liberal memes in the past few years have consumed more of the liberati than anyone else.

I am curious as to whether you think this makes the liberal order stronger or weaker. Will this ongoing series of witch hunts turn more people away from liberal ideals, or will it serve only to create a somewhat smaller but more fanatical movement?

Or perhaps this is the inevitable outcome of the cancel culture.

4Reply

MattJun 29

Excellent article Matt!

A couple additional resources if folks want more information related to pushing back on Critical Race Theory and its derivations:

https://newdiscourses.com/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5N_uAqApEUIlg32QzkPlg

5Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

Big shout-out to Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying on this subject!

4Reply

John-MichaelJun 29

Seconded!

Reply

mbeakenJul 1

To the hundred of subscribers who are thanking Matt for saying white privilege doesn’t exist:

1. That is NOT what he is saying (although as I pointed out in my comment above unfortunately due to what I think is an unfair and hyperbolic analysis of DiAngelo I understand how one could draw that conclusion.

2. Did all of you read the article Taibbi JUST posted earlier this month ABOUT systemic racism?? Since so many here are asking for “proof” POC are treated unequally, here is a direct Taibbi quote: “Even during the Covid-19 crisis, 80% of the summonses for social distancing violations are given out to blacks and Hispanics. Does anyone really think that minorities account for that massive a percentage of those violations? Do they think black people really commit 3.73 times as many marijuana offenses as white people?

I think the comments on this page do more to prove DiAngelo’s main thesis than her book ever could: there is a problem in white culture with being able to calmly and rationally recognize and analyze our own racial experience in this country.

I disagree with much of what Taibbi said, AND agree with much of what Taibbi said (I contain multitudes, haha...). I am definitely not unsubscribing. I think these conversations are essential and important. I would just ask if at a time when racial tensions are escalating and we have a white supremacist president, perhaps claiming that one of the most popular public figures of antiracism is saying things (that she does NOT say) like “there is no universal human experience” and “you have no identity apart from white supremacy” and likening her to Hitler on a public platform is...irresponsible or at least unnecessarily inflammatory? Just look at the likes and comments on this article vs your previous article on policing (that actually calls out racism). I know it wasn’t your intent to galvanize your fans’ racist ideas, but clearly (if you read the comments) that was the impact this article had.

1Reply

Caek IsloveJul 2

> we have a white supremacist president

https://web.archive.org/web/20161117195122/http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

Reply

John GaltJun 29

What about “black fragility”? You know, where everything that happens to them is because they’re black. Bad service in a restaurant...it’s because I’m black. Stopped for speeding...it’s because I’m black. Being ignored in a retail store...it’s because I’m black. You know, the kinds of things that happen to people of all colors every day but only blacks attribute it to their skin color. One black person described his experience with racism when he walked into a golf shop and the employee there said “can I help you” when the reply was “no I’m fine” the employee asked “do you have a tee time“ he was answered with “no, I’m just looking”. The employee then proceeded to fold shirts near where the back man was browsing. The black man attributed it to him being black, but could it have just been good customer service and if he had been ignored would it have also been because he was black? A no win situation. Barack Obama once described his moment of racism when a person pulled up to a hotel where he was waiting outside and handed him his keys thinking he was the valet. I’m white and the same thing has happened to me. Michelle Obama’s racist experience was when a lady at Target asked her to reach something on a high shelf. I’m tall and I’ve been asked the same thing. My god how will they ever get over that kind of blatant racism??? Black fragility, it’s real.

4Reply

angelOJun 30

I feel you! The only thing I hate more than being accused of racism is black people. AmIRite? Or am I right?

1Reply

OlafJul 1

In your own mind you are completely correct.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 29

Several times, I have been treated (offered special privileges) as a lawyer. The problem is that I am not a lawyer. I was dressed like one however.

Reply

Dave RolloJul 1

Bravo! Wonderful smackdown of the garbage that passes for "scholarship" in various "Critical Theory" "disciplines." For more on the mind virus of "wokeness" that has gotten us to this sorry state, check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k

2Reply

MoeJun 29

Great read as always .

People these days seem to be losing their shit more than ever , they seem to be out for blood , they relish the opportunity to destroy someone's life for minor precieved offenses , have no idea where to tie this new way of thinking back to ! I think this goes way beyond cancel culture when just a difference in opinion can lead to the destruction of your life , even when you mean good . It all seems to not matter and the masses are just going along with it not realizing that one day all of this will be back to haunt them one day .

5Reply

QuanJun 29

Good observations.

- "..have no idea where to tie this new way of thinking back to.."

Due to years of brainwash from K12 to universities where kids were taught to hate the system instead of being given the true picture. For all it flaws, America is the greatest country based on the simple fact that most people want to come.

- "It all seems to not matter and the masses are just going along with it not realizing that one day all of this will be back to haunt them one day." Therefore, it's important not to be intimidated into silence if you don't want these people to be in the position of power. I really admire the courage and honesty Matt shows with his articles.

2Reply

CertexJun 29

'America is the greatest country based on the simple fact that most people want to come.' A meaningless, self-aggrandising statement. Ironic that you talk of 'years of brainwash from K12,' really. There are immigrants all over the world, moving into other countries apart from America. 'Most' people don't want to move there. That's just blind patriotism and exceptionalism.

1Reply

QuanJun 29

Certex, please check out the following World Economic Forum article based on my quick check on Google:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/these-are-the-countries-migrants-want-to-move-to/

Personally, my own experience- and of millions immigrants before me over the years- as some one who came to America with absolutely nothing and was able to get where I am today is a testament to this fact.

1Reply

KevinOKeeffeJun 29

Liking America is problematic. You're supposed to hate this country.

1Reply

J JVSJun 29

makes Art of the Deal look like Anna Karenina...lol...pure fucking gold

5Reply

AntipodeanJun 29

Hi Matt

Coincidentally, someone mentioned to me that even youTubers like Joe Rogan are starting to discuss this topic. So I went and took a look: here's an example, using primary sources from what he was discussing recently (Odette Finn has an Afro-Carribean mother and white dad, but had this experience at the infamous Evergreen State College fracas back in Spring 2017 when she didn't play along with "the mob"):

IVETTE FELICIANO:

Senior Odette Finn was a student of both Weinstein's and Heying's and identifies as multi-racial. She says she never saw racism as a problem at the school, but that her opinions about her experience weren't tolerated by many of her peers.

ODETTE FINN:

I wasn't against Bret and I was against their methods and the protests, I was deemed a traitor. They explained that we are trying to give voice to those who don't have a voice. I thought it was very ironic that– the people who were telling me that they wanted to give a platform for minorities to speak weren't listening to mine. IT CREATES A CAMPUS WHERE YOU'RE JUST REALLY SCARED TO SAY ANYTHING, SO YOU JUST KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT [added emphasis by me].

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/evergreen-copes-with-fallout-months-after-day-of-absence-sparked-national-debate#transcript

Additionally, we are definitely in troubling times when you start seeing hashtags like this:

"...People on social media are spreading word about the strike with the hashtags #ShutDownAcademia, #ShutDownSTEM and #Strike4BlackLives..."

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/thousands-of-scientists-go-on-strike-to-protest-systemic-racism-stem.html

5Reply

MitchyJun 29

Thank you

5Reply

Ray AmbroseJun 29

Excellent article, you rarely disappoint.

5Reply

Maron FenicoJun 29

I have read Ms. DiAngelo's book, and I was impressed with her insights, which, for me, ought to be a good first start to initiating a discussion between black and white folks that has yet to occur in the 200+ years of our country. Based on my own experiences (67 years old; citizen of 6 states), I believe that most Americans are either clueless or dangerously misinformed when it comes to understanding black history and culture. And without a solid appreciation of the myriad of black experiences, white folks cannot begin to even appreciate the disparities that exist. Tell me a better way than Ms. DiAngelo's approach, and I'll listen. Otherwise, stop the bullshit talk about her methods. I am a fan of Matt's, but I am disappointed in the article. TY

4Reply

DanJun 30

The "better way" you ask for is called "desegregation," and works pretty well as evidenced by your own experience.

How to accomplish that? I dunno. Gentrification didn't work so well. Regardless, nurturing desegregated community is what would be the best way, IMHO.

Reply

Huuti ScuttJun 29

Dear Mr. Taibbi,

I am incredibly suspicious of corporate, liberal, academic, and media posturing on anti-racism, and I am seriously concerned about apparent attempts to divorce identity politics from the politics of economic inequality. As important as I think an essentially Marxist critique of political economy is to understanding the way our system works, I have to thank you with what will amount to faint praise for having been one of the few mainstream writers to actually get us talking about issues that we should be talking about. This discourse, however, has helped clarify for me that class politics is not up to the task of explaining our world without the recognition of white supremacy.

I'm suspicious of the term "white privilege" for several reasons, not the least of which is that fact that so many white people are apparently comfortable applying it to ourselves. While I do not want to diminish an progress our willingness to "admit" or "confess white privilege" might represent, the very fact that it has been embraced by such a large segment of our power structure begs a huge question that it appears is also at the center of Di'Angelo's critique. It assumes that white supremacy is a nearly-universal force that can effectively be countered by reading the woke script with a sense of conviction.

The problem is that white supremacy is real, and while its effective force may be indistinguishable from economic power, it is not reducible to economics and therefore must be encountered in its own right. As someone who is suspicious of gestures of "intersectional" solidarity, it should go without saying that the alternatives of D'Angelo's take are generally worse {e.g. mainstream Republican discourse). But one useful thing that even facile identity politics recognizes correctly is that we speak in code both with and without conscious intention. I trust, for instance, that I don't need to explain the code hidden in the slogan "all lives matter." The phrase is a bit of contemporary rhetoric that is clearly intended to counter the assertion that Black Lives Matter. It is a means, at the very least, of diverting attention from obviously legitimate grievance regarding longstanding structural racism perpetuated by the criminal justice system. I bring this up because it seems to speak to your argument about Dr. King's famously over-quoted line about judging human beings by "the content of their character and not the color of their skin."

The "I Have a Dream" speech was delivered in 1963 as the culmination of at least a decade of "powerful direct action" against segregation in the Jim Crow south. Jim Crow was explicitly based on the concept that the color of one's skin was all anyone needed to know in order to determine literally everything about their political, economic and social lives. Like most of the things King said and did, his speech in 1963 was part of a courageous and ingenious strategy intended to achieve specific ends on a historical battleground. This is not to say that his comment about the "content" of one's "character" were in any way cynical or that they have become obsolete (except maybe in D'Angelo's head). Nevertheless, it is also a fact of historical discourse that King's quote has been consistently used since the time of his assassination as a bulwark to a brand of "colorblindness" that is sustained today by phrases such as "all lives matter."

Economic discourse is not big enough to address white supremacy, but historical discourse is. The critique of white supremacy does not need to be a new form of essentialism any more than biological "races" need to exist on tiers of natural inequality. The undercover essentialism of liberal politics is likely to abet white supremacy by making us comfortable with another round of Just-So history in which people can feel good about themselves by feeling bad about themselves. However, while "racial" differences are still apparent in all of the numbers aggregated in American life, it will be necessary to call out tricknology wherever it has wormed itself most recently. Someone needs to address the comfortable-group think of identity politics, and I can thank you for that as a matter of strategy. The way things are looking to me, however, the goal is to take the critique of white supremacy as far as is necessary to change a human landscape that is still essentially segregated along lines that define race even if we are no longer willing to give the term a definition. I don't trust people like D'Angelo (ie, people who give speeches to corporations about subjects other than business) for much the same reason that you do not trust them. Tactically, however, it is a mistake that helps no one to deny the dirty work that has been done using the most selectively quoted speech from an oeuvre that no one could mistake for the false-colorblindness of "all lives matter" if anyone was interested in listening or re-reading beyond this most abused of soundbites. There has been half-a-century of history in which the trick has been to deny the ontology of whiteness, and one does not have to affirm that ontology to call out the trick.

Sincerely,

Huuti Scutt

Jamaica, Queens

4Reply

Ben DoverJul 1

Thank you, Matt Taibbi. Years of observing have taught me that white people who obsess about skin color really are everything they accuse everyone else of being, which is to say bigoted, racist, hateful, xenophobic, etc. Thankfully, most of the rest of us are not them. I am heartened that nobody attacked Jussie Smollet or Bubba Wallace because of their race. Nobody. Anywhere. We are not the problem. The Robin DiAngelos of the world are the problem.

2Reply

ToddJun 29

The sick identity politics fetish is dividing our country in ways that Louis Farrakhan, David Duke, and Bull Conner could only dream of. The “white supremacy” thing is the biggest bunch of crap ever thought up. Martin Luther King Jr., one of my heroes, is flipping in his grave. If identity thinking isn’t excised from our culture, and soon, it will destroy the Democrat party and push the Republicans to a far right position. There aren’t millions of racists running around America like “identarians” (and their partners the mainstream media) would have you believe, but: keep it up and there will be...

4Reply

Caek IsloveJul 1

If I want to prove that all dogs bite all I need to do is go around the neighborhood kicking every dog I see and continue until my thesis is proven! It was the dogs that were bad all along, they were just hiding it!!

Reply

Jack FrostJun 30

Well done. You need a trigger warning at the beginning of the article : WARNING. Logic and reasoning required.

3Reply

Trampas SmithJun 30

So we’ll done Matt! You are important right now, as few others have the courage, credentials and skills to speak obvious truth against this Maoist BS.

3Reply

SkutchJun 29

Kind of funny how rhetoric is used today to cover up what the class war is responsible for. How did I become guilty of supporting a racist system that I didn't approve of in the first place ? I didn't ask to be born white or poor any more than any person of any other race did. I don't have the political power or the money to change the system any more than the people being oppressed. Once again we see yet another useful idiot of the elite using rhetoric to divert attention away from the very people who owned slaves and made the decisions to commit genocide and fraud with public resources to obtain or maintain their hold on power which allows them all the spoils.

The buzz has to be created in order to keep the people on top from being exposed and dethroned. The only way to cover up a class war is to create a race war. The people on top are now so parasitic they can no longer share the bounty with poor whites so they are trying the age old trick of blaming the poor for their sins.

What we can all count on is that all of the billionaire owned governments will continue to baffle us with absolute bullshit in order to keep their outsized share of money, power, and prestige.

4Reply

lewis guignardJun 29

I'll agree that racism exists, it always will. Can we minimize it? We have. Mixed couples are everywhere, and the average person doesn't care. Black people and white people mix freely in restaurants and at work and at ball games, but those who seek to divide CAN'T see. Black on black crime kills more black men than police, but that can't be spoken aloud (for fear of canceling) In fact what can be spoken is dictated from where? Twitter, that bastion of free speech, or is it a method of control.

You want a problem; try this. In Charlotte NC, the Black Political Caucus deliver's the vote to the Democrats. The political leaders benefit, but the voters are ignored as soon as the vote is over.

I could go on.

But what you are generally talking about is politics and money, not race.

4Reply

ChadmanJun 30

Progressivism is racism

3Reply

IbbiatJun 30

Man, Matt. I'm not jealous of your job. You criticize ONE PARTICULAR BOOK that's about race and on that basis alone, hundreds of commenters essentially accuse you of being racist.

These people are not deep thinkers. Please keep up the good work. Some of us appreciate it.

3Reply

NathanJul 1

This column is badly needed and overdue. Thank God for Matt Taibbi and for all the souls with the courage to call out our naked emperors.

2Reply

ConchJul 1

Well, yet another comment down the drain.

This site is WAY TOO TWITCHY and WAY TOO SLOW . Maybe it is set up for hunt-and-peckers.

It is practically impossible to type anything, and comments disappear in the twinkling of an eye, for no obvious reason.

Also, the Find function does not work.

It only finds the name of a commenter, not the locator phrase that one remembers. So it is pointless to try to find the comment one was responding to.

Weird.

I do not have this experience at any other site where I comment ( three or four).

2Reply

ScottJul 1

hahah it's probably overly burdened by the NSA and CIA recording every single keystroke as they compile their "dissenters" lists for future use during the great purges to come.

Reply

Conch23 hr

You may be riiiiiiigghgh ttt aaaaarggghg hglurg

Reply

MascotJul 2

trust me, hunt and peck typists have no advantage with this format.

I don't think Substack anticipated a blizzard of posts in their story comments.

Reply

Conch23 hr

My perception is that there is a "pile-up" if one types more than a few letters in quick succession and they stop appearing on the screen. Actually, though, typing slowly also doesn't make it work any better. What's the deal here? It is pathetic!!

Reply

Chris BJun 30

" I know white people are literally attacking people holding up cardboard signs saying black lives matter and in some cases killing them. But talking about race and white peoples over reaction makes me sooo uncomfortable. "

2Reply

Chris BJun 30

Look at these fucking racist comments in your comment section. This is the behavior your knee jerk reaction to the word " white fragility" creates. More white fragility and racism. Way to go Matt. You really ended racism.

3Reply

NickJun 30

Are white people attracting people holding up signs?? Sure seems like it’s the sign holders who are attacking.

So, how far do you want to go, Chris?

Reparations?

Redistribution?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?

Are we going to “get it right” this time, or will it be another 20 million dead?

3Reply

KevinJun 30

LMAO holding up a stupid sign isn't the same as attacking, shooting, lynching and running over people. You're literally proving the point of the phrase. And of you're not paying attention to how many people have died from the disdain of the simple phrase Black lives matter then it's clear what you bias is.

1Reply

SamuelJun 29

Initially I had believed the stupidity of the anti racist movement to bring about at lesst some necessary change... and it sort of did.

Structural racism has come to the forefront of the national conversation. That said, I can't handle this religious cult-like thinking. This "wokeness" as to die.

4Reply

SlitzyJun 30

Matt, I was a fan of yours 20 years ago. You lost me for a while....but you are winning me back. Great article.

3Reply

MikeJun 30

This is by far the most densely packed comment thread I have seen any where. Looks like Taibbi's column landed like a cannon ball in an ocean of white guilt. I read the article, wrote a short reply and moved on. i don't apologize for being white, never have and never will. I simply do not care about black people one way or the other. Like almost all whites, I simply avoid interacting with them as much as possible. Don't mean them any harm, but I don't owe them anything either.

2Reply

Wally LindJun 30

I agree. Race is not the center of my world, and won't be unless I'm confronted by an angry mob, or shoot a minority burglar and have to explain myself. I've had and have a few black friends, and race has been there but hasn't prevented us from working for having fun together. The idea that history is about race is absurd!

1Reply

laura I guessJul 1

Gross. You’re gross. If what you’re saying is that all white. people are like you that’s gross. I am white and I love people who are not white. People who are Black, Asian, Chicano etc. I don’t have to live in a suburban hidey hole. A red hat brigade of spoiled mediocrity that can’t handle the whole of america. Not just the trump corner.

Reply

REBECCA J SHYTLEJun 30

Matt, you hit a nerve here. The divide and conquer strategy of the elitists is working. Labeling all white people as inherently racist whether consciously or subconsciously is categorically racist. There is classism in this country. Money can buy your way out of jail and into any university-not a system based on justice or merit.

3Reply

DelarodJun 29

"DiAngelo writes like a person who was put in timeout as a child for speaking clearly." This one got me, I haven't laugh while reading an article in a long time. Keep up the good work Matt.

4Reply

Tom GardnerJun 29

Thank you for talking some sense Matt. Your honesty and frankness and bravery in speaking out about modern day Mcarthyism is appreciated.

4Reply

Barbara DJun 29

*DiAngelo instructs us there is nothing to be done here, except “strive to be less white.”*

Not trying to be argumentative here, but wouldn't "striving to be less white." come with accusations of cultural appropriation?

I don't think there's an easy answer here. We just have to work it out in our living. Or as Micah said: do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.

4Reply

Unladen ParrotJun 29

What is the proposed replacement for "white" to describe the ethnic group of those mixed mutt Americans of predominantly Euro ancestry?

Reply

AldenJun 30

Robin DiAngelo has a sequel to her White Fragility book due out after the election. The title?

Self-Flagellation and White People: The price of survival in the New America

3Reply

landonJun 30

Ms Diangelo is con artist. If you disagree with her side and you respond argumentatively, that proves your white fragility, based in racism. If you sit silent and don't argue, that proves your white fragility, based in racism..

Heads she wins, tails you lose.

She and they dont want a "conversation" , they want their side to lecture your side and and you to agree capitulate, no matter what, thats it. That will never happen

3Reply

WLJun 29

Read this article and finally paid for my annual subscription. Long overdue. Happy to be supporting your work, Matt.

4Reply

blaineJun 29

That was great Matt you're fucking amazing. I'm sending it to everyone I know! Keep it up!

4Reply

landonJun 30

"strive to be less white", lol, what the hell does that mean? Should I watch less hockey? Where do you begin?

There is no white privilege or black dis-privilege. There is socioeconomic privilege and insider vs outsider privilege that transcends race. This is how the Hillary server-gate case was FIXED (for and insider) by a corrupt DOJ and FBI, and a rich guy Donald Trump (an outsider) was framed by the same DOJ and FBI

Several years ago, a mediocre former NFL player named Donte Stallworth, who is black, was intoxicated and hit and killed a non black pedestrian who was simply walking to work early one Miami morning. Donte was given probation, served no time and I dont even think misses a single NFL game. Donte is black, his victim was not. Where did Donte's very clear privilege here derive from?? His status and economic situation ruled the day as it alway does, nothing to do with race

3Reply

Henrik SvendsenJun 29

First read as a subscriber, and it was a great one. Proud to support your work, Matt. Best regards from Norway!

4Reply

MikeJun 29

This is an excellent, brave piece, slightly marred by this bit of leftwing pandering: "when conservative nationalism is on the rise and violent confrontation on the streets is becoming commonplace." What is on the rise is leftwing racial nuttiness, as this article makes clear. Linking "conservative nationalism," whatever that is to violent confrontation is a smear. When have we had a conservative nationalist protest or confrontation? I'd like to know so I could show up.

2Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 29

Although I don't think the statement rose to "slightly marr[ing]" this excellent piece, I agree. I don't see a lot of conservative nationalist rabble rousing.....at the moment. However, I am concerned that if this keeps up we will see plenty of conservative nationalist protest & confrontation. That is part of the danger here. And if that happens, I would never condone it, but I will understand from whence it came.

1Reply

MikeJun 29

Fair enough. That was just one of the more glaring instances of Taibbi having to pander and emphasize his liberal bona fides in order to avoid the guillotine. And I have great sympathy for him, so I continue to read his stuff which is mostly clear-headed and fair.

1Reply

SkepticJun 30

I agree with you, Mike, but he may be able to get a few people to read and think who otherwise wouldn't by throwing in those barbs. Old Soviet academic papers on any topic whatsoever always had to start with a quote from Lenin. For some liberals, an OrangeManBad shot is equally required to trust a writer enough to keep reading. If so, maybe a small price to pay.

3Reply

MikeJun 30

Yes, well said, Skeptic. I think Taibbi himself would agree. I just find it sad.

1Reply

sasinseaJun 29

Sorry there was a sentence that offended your delicate sensibilities.

Reply

MikeJun 29

Sorry I woke you up.

1Reply

J JVSJun 29

JFC that is writing at its best

4Reply

JesusFair01Jun 30

The leftwing ideology always lead to totalitarianism and the suppression of free expression, communism and fascism share a common trait: millions have been killed in their names; and communism is far ahead in the killing Department; it is really ironic that the system self proclaimed to be for the proletariat end being a mass murderer and an economic and mental slavery.

3Reply

AldenJun 30

Excellent point! I made my 15 year old and 11 year old watch Animal Farm yesterday, right after we learned that the Minneapolis City Council got their own private security after defunding security for the city.

2Reply

Michael HarringtonJun 29

It just gets nuttier and nuttier.

4Reply

oliverJun 30

"keeping us divided" is a "benefit" and is the point. no better way to control people than to get one half to hate the other half.

we are already history. the fed is buying ATT bonds, the chinese government has never been more joyful about its prospects for world domination, and "we" are defacing statues while rome burns.

I have never been so heartbroken as an american.

3Reply

Michael HaleyJun 29

fantastic article, and I love your sense of humor

4Reply

Tom HoganJun 30

Mr. Taibbi, you could simply have written "Effete faux elitists like Robin Diangelo aren't worth your time."

3Reply

Petra BueskensJun 29

Brave, brilliant and witty writing Matt! Thank you. It’s so important to keep pointing out how corporate and institutionalised all this thought policing has become.

4Reply

Ben BrownJun 29

Thank you, Matt! Once again, amazing piece!

4Reply

Caine O'RearJun 29

Thank you.

4Reply

C.S. DayJun 30

i reject a good portion of the thinking behind anti-racism (the current set of beliefs constituting that movement, not the concept in general) on liberal grounds, namely on the grounds of my antecedent beliefs in universalism and rationalism

if you support the present program of anti-racism in full then you are committed to believing that there is no common trait(s), from imagination to human experience broadly, robust enough to give human minds the capacity to understand one another, and that the extent of any person's reason is constrained by the biographical categories like race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation that informed their socialization

in effect, the A-R program is empiricism on steroids, and while that is for the moment not a mark against it in the minds of most people who have not thought about the philosophical implications, it will soon be once it dawns on them that the corollary to believing that white people cannot understand the lived black experience is now inviting them to believe just as fully that no black person can understand, say, shakespeare

this is not progress

3Reply

RamiJun 30

I started reading this book and abandoned it. Its rubbish. I cant believe Americans have allowed themselves to be bullied and psychologically intimidated this way. It is the same concept that brought us communism, but in just a slightly different context:

"If I cant be as rich, powerful, pretty, fit, wealthy, smart, etc as you, the next thing I want is for you to come to my level so we can all be miserable"

Since blacks have not been able to reach the level of success of whites, neither in USA or ANY other country for that matter, including countries in Africa, then they resort to all these talks about white fragility, white supremacy, white privilege as indoctrinating tools to make whites feel guilty and remorseful. The concept of privilege is the most twisted one because its based on statistics (majority is white in USA) rather than a real belonging to a club. If you are born white you dont belong to any preferential club, like for example, a monarchy. You just live your life as it comes to you and either fail or succeed.

In other words, that a white is not stopped by the police for NOT speeding or breaking the law, is NOT a privilege - its the way it should be for all. Then fix the problem for those who have it, but dont destroy the system that works for the MAJORITY.

If anything, they should be thankful to live in a country of affluent majority instead of affluent minority. For example Brazil is 75% mulatto, yet the richest people are still the minority white. Same was South Africa, heck even Haiti, with 95% black, you still see the lighter skin (few whites and light brown) be the ones with the power.

I know racism exists here but it is also here where blacks have reached levels of fortune and fame that makes the rest of world pale in comparison (think Jordan, Oprah, MJ, Obama, and the long list of African american celebrities, whose fortune combined can pay for Africa External debt!). Give me the Burundi, or even London version of that!

So much stupidity! (roll eyes!)

3Reply

Susan Johnston, Ph.D.Jun 30

Okay, yes. My major conflict with the premise is that it isn't fragility as much as ignorance. Having worked extensively with a broad cross section of the population to assist in finding employment, it comes as a surprise to most of my white colleagues that, yes, it really is harder. I watched with some level of skepticism when I initially encountered white employers who routinely bypassed the more qualified candidates who were coming out of our community college for the less qualified candidates that looked and talked and acted like the people they already had in their companies. And these were Fortune 500 organizations.

Okay, racism exists and not just in employment but housing, healthcare, etc. It is difficult to convey how frustrating it is when young people do everything right and still get the door slammed to people who can't quite believe it is that bad. Like me before my job confronted me.

What is more heartbreaking was the response from my students. It's okay, they would say, even as I shook my head. We'll keep looking. They found good jobs eventually but the loss of human capital and the disillusionment with the system takes its toll.

3Reply

GJFJun 29

It is all a campaign of division by design. Once you understand this and see the wires animating the characters, it's only a matter of time, research and independant thought to build a picture of who the ringmasters of this indoctrination might be. Then with diligence, perserverence and a wide variety of sources it's possible to make out those behind the curtain who commission our social engineering for fun and profit. The ante curtain dwellers have been at it such a long time they've become predictable, their faces all appear in cross-linked and unsurprising Foundation advisory boards and crucially they've always gotten away with it. Somehow it feels like they doubled down for a cycle too long and missed the next wave.

When we reach major turning points in culture like now, the current orthodoxy loses fashion and legitimacy in a flash. After Trump exceeds Nixon's 1972 landslide, many in the extreme left will come to their senses about how alienated they've become and de-legitimized their platform is. You'll know when that "what were we thinking?" wave hits, the pulp ficture of the old orthodoxy will be onr sale for a buck in yard sales or just in with the garbage.

Reply

MrMcLovinJun 30

I hope you're being sarcastic, because that optimism is giving way too much credit to a mass of people who haven't been able to see how patently insane they've been acting for the last four years. It's only going to get worse

Reply

GJF19 hr

Sorry too many double negatives in your reply to know exactly what you are saying. However trust this; many Trump supporters are what you could call the silent majority. They don't participate in polling and they keep their political intentions quiet in order not to alienate friends and associates. In 2016 another category, first time voters came out for Trump. They will again in even larger numbers.

What these three voter categories have in common is that they simply do not appear to the pundits and pollsters. Hence "Hillary by a landslide" turned into a big electoral college win by Trump and therefore the Presidency.

You can add to this a very large number of black and hispanic voters who have woken up to the fact that the Democrats actively work against their wealth and well-being with their policies. The result? There is simply zero avenue for Trump to be defeated.

The Democrats are trying their hardest to cheat, ballot harvest and include illegal votes. However if you pay attention to DOJ press releases you will be noticing a big uptick in arrests of county and state election officials around the country for illegal actions.

Reply

jhnwlkJun 29

Oh, Matt, you really missed the mark on this topic right out of the gate with the closing sentence of the first paragraph:

"The concept, as articulated in books like former corporate consultant Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility (Amazon’s #1 seller!) reduces everything, even the smallest and most innocent human interactions, to racial power contests."

The basis of White Supremacy is the fragility of a minority of whites who are hoping desperately to retain something they were never entitled to in the first place. The words supremacy and fragility could be substituted for one another in any part of this discussion.

3Reply

TMCJun 30

So if we are only talking about the "fragility of a minority of whites who are hoping desperately to retain something they were never entitled to in the first place", then why is anyone trying to foist this nonsense on society as a whole? Why not just create re-education camps and send those "minority of whites" there for re-education and leave the rest of us to live our lives of quiet desperation?

2Reply

angelOJun 29

DiAngelo makes the point that "fragility" in this context is really just bullying. The goal is to shut down any dialogue.

2Reply

OlafJul 1

Ironic.

Reply

Gaspatcho Crem'e D'MenthJun 29

liberals are the worst racists.

3Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

See, Matt. This is the type of garbage you attract with this kind of "analysis."

1Reply

Gaspatcho Crem'e D'MenthJun 30

That's some next lvl shit right there. It seems in your attempt to belittle me you inadvertently did yourself.

2Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

Much as I'd love to take the credit, you did your own belittling.

1Reply

angelOJun 29

Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail made that abundantly clear.

Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

....this one, as well.

Reply

Caek IsloveJul 1

now KISS!

Reply

Mike MoserJun 29

Matt, we don't always meet as minds, but it took courage to write this article. Respect.

3Reply

TheMule99Jun 29

If what DiAngelo is saying is true, then her own whiteness disqualifies her opinions about race. So, she can't be both valid and invalid at the same time with the same message. So, she can only be invalid.

3Reply

William shakespeareJun 29

What a brilliant, courageous critique of "the dumbest book ever written written. Thank you, Matt. "Corporate America doubtless views the current protest movement as something that can be addressed as an H.R. matter, among other things by hiring thousands of DiAngelos to institute codes for the proper mode of Black-white workplace interaction." You said it.

3Reply

HarrietJun 29

I just looked up the author of this book and realised it's the same woman who was lecturing at Evergreen university before the institution descended into chaos. If you're interested in where these ideas lead, check out this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk&list=PLLHyNSlsz44_GceBMuwAyflt3lDWMEjTG

3Reply

SkepticJun 30

Good catch. Did her speech spark all that?

Reply

HarrietJun 30

(Short answer: it's complicated; I don't know and I need to read more).

Disagreeing with the White Fragility argument earns you the title of ‘racist’ (as does being white), so it's easy to see how this would justify the student/faculty reaction to Weinstein's protest on their Day of Absence. If I genuinely believed there was a White Supremacist lecturer working at a university, inciting race hate in his lectures, I would have something to say about it. Many of the students are reduced to tears throughout the protests, begging the faculty to protect them from this ‘racist’ lecturer - which would indicate they genuinely believed the same ideology espoused in the book.

Ultimately, it's difficult to determine how much DiAngelo's consultation contributed to the outcome. The fact that Evergreen invited her to educate them on the issue would indicate that they were already receptive to the ideology. Each of the activists likely also have their own psychological reasons for participating in the mob, as do the faculty for their active part/avoidance/cowardice.

Equally, one of the continuous phrases the mob were privy to was centred on their role as ‘customers’ within the university, a position that seems to give them a lot of power. This likely contributed to the faculty’s response, and indicates a deeper problem within these institutions.

1Reply

ConchJun 30

OMG the "core tenents [sic]" are totalitarian.

Reply

RI RebelJun 29

I am a white 50 something woman who went to a North East lily white liberal arts college on a scholarship. I was economic diversity and I hated it there. Reading the comments of people who believe they are intellectuals with pretty words and long sentences here reminds me why I was disgusted.

3Reply

SkepticJun 30

Sounds insufferable. Maybe some of them grew up and became better people later.

Reply

DougAzJun 30

First I am getting White Privilege on the review and recommendation of Jonathan Capehart. Second, Taibbi is a junk pseudo intellectual writer exposing vastly simplified concepts in verbal vomit without ever talking about the state of things:

Truth: I posted several times to links of graphs that show for 60 sixty years the systematic and institutional racial bias that our fellow American citizens face who are born Black.

The Gaps Between White and Black America, in Charts https://nyti.ms/3fDJ39J

Not one program or policy of Liberals or Conservatives, Democrats or Republicans have closed the parallel, increasing good rise in many economic and social areas. Yet do not ever speak of well boats rise..nonsense. We have institutional long term ingrained systemic racial bias. Period.

If a book like White Fragility gets under Taibbi's skin... great. If some eggs get broken on the path to true honest quality.. so be it. Better remember our 1770s history against lesser tyranny says Abraham Lincoln "On the question of liberty, as a principle, we are not what we have been. When we were the political slaves of King George, and wanted to be free, we called the maxim that "all men are created equal" a self evident truth; but now when we have grown fat, and have lost all dread of being slaves ourselves, we have become so greedy to be masters that we call the same maxim "a self evident lie." 1855. Lincoln to George Robertson

Darwin is messy, but Darwin is Undefeated.

There will eventually come racial equality. In fits and starts.

Reply

Michael GoldenbergJul 1

The goal isn't equality. It's equity. No two people are "equal" regardless of the feel-good blather of the "Founding Fathers" or the misguided rhetoric of later Americans. Further, there's ample evidence (our resident racists and genetic revisionists notwithstanding) that there's far more genetic variation within members of the same ethnic group than between members of different groups. Our ridiculous ideas about race are based on surface features like hair and skin color, yet genetic analysis suggests that aboriginal Australians are far more closely related genetically to Asians than to Africans. Our propensity to categorize by skin color is wrong-headed in a host of ways. And it's led to centuries of needless abuse and suffering, much of it all too convenient for purposes of dehumanizing those one wishes to enslave and treat like things.

Your take on Matt's reaction to this piece of garbage book, that it "got under his skin" seems like your personal "issues." Since I started seriously following Matt's writing, he doesn't seem to me to be someone whose skin is much gotten under.

And that Lincoln stuff is sad. The notion that there are lots of parallels between the "economic slavery" of American colonists to King George and actual enslavement in every possible way is repugnant. Was Lincoln really that much of a dolt? I thought him a far better master of English than that. But perhaps he didn't say it more accurately because that's actually his degree of cluelessness. I wonder what he would have said if he'd had a chance to see the state of the country in 1965.

And finally, people cite Darwin in conversations about humanity and politics at their peril. Unless you care to flesh that last sentence out, I'm going to hope you mean something other than what I suspect.

Reply

AldenJul 1

I would go a sterp further. The goal isn't equality or equity..it's payback time for the "oppressed". How can I say this? BLM has coalesced the aggrievement camps and solidified them into an actual party, coming soon to your neighborhood. The stink of fear is emanating from the urban areas now...where politicians and citizens who have sat idly by watching the shit show, have grabbed their ankles ready for the party to begin.

People like DiAngelo will be bootlicker #1 to BLM crowd, them sit in judgement on whitey...for whom there is no hope of saving

Read what they believe, straight from the website:

The Black Lives Matter Global Network is as powerful as it is because of our membership, our partners, our supporters, our staff, and you. Our continued commitment to liberation for all Black people means we are continuing the work of our ancestors and fighting for our collective freedom because it is our duty.

Every day, we recommit to healing ourselves and each other, and to co-creating alongside comrades, allies, and family a culture where each person feels seen, heard, and supported.

We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate differences and commonalities.

We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.

We intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.

We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others.

We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.

We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.

We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.

We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

We cultivate an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, show up with the capacity to lead and learn.

We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another.

1Reply

DougAzJul 1

Equality: The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.

Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

I like your comment "Our propensity to categorize by skin color is wrong-headed in a host of ways. And it's led to centuries of needless abuse and suffering, much of it all too convenient for purposes of dehumanizing those one wishes to enslave and treat like things." But the fact remains, a large portion of Americans are not-color blind in their interaction, thoughts about others.

I love Darwin. I will tell you that I am a secular Physicist. My Theologian Minister brother who I deeply love, sees Darwin as one of the great evil men of history.

I tell you that I believe that Darwinian forces, evolutionary, intransigent, as moving forward as the flow of time itself, is clear to me. I face no peril in my beliefs.

Reply

QuietlikeJun 30

Please tell me how reading a book as bad as this one is going to solve the problem of 60 plus percent of black children living in single-parent homes?

Parenting is extremely stressful and when the dad walks out and leaves it all to the mother s*** falls through the cracks. Any public school teacher who's taught at schools in predominantly black poor neighborhoods can attest to this. I grew up attending predominantly black schools and about 2/3 of the black kids lived in awful environments at home with no books and nobody that would read them to them.

Is this an issue that was originally created from racism in the past decades? Absolutely. But the demons that Robin claims still inhabit the minds of all white people ar en't causing these kids to not be read to or properly parented. That's caused by the dads walking out. a whole lot of those guys are out on the streets being enabled by bandwagon riding egg heads like you defending a book you haven't even read against a bad review.

Seriously you haven't read the book. I have. Feel free to Google for the essay the book is based on which is free to read.

Just another sniveling morally posturing racist white liberal. I used to have barbecues in DC where tons and tons of people happen to be black and people like you would show up and start throwing the term African American around and make everybody uncomfortable immediately. My black friends used to laugh about it and say that the phrase African American was an immediate tell for a white person that was uncomfortable around black people. I bet you've done that haven't you?

1Reply

AldenJul 1

Good Stuff! Question: Why are black men walking out? Are they forced out? Why don't they stick around? Something is going on there that's unspoken

Reply

DougAzJul 1

When you read the link I posted about our 60 year systemic and Institutional Racial Bias - wake up and let me know. Feel free to call me whatever you want. It's your right. Your right to hate me, while not knowing me, to characterize me so ignorantly, is all your right.

But again - you haven't read MY positions on the ongoing failure to address systemic institutional racial bias.

And in my opinion, this assignation piece by Matt ! is an outrageous piece of junk.When you read the link I posted about our 60 year systemic and Institutional Racial Bias - wake up and let me know. Feel free to call me whatever you want. It's your right. Your right to hate me, while not knowing me, to characterize me so ignorantly, is all your right.

But again - you haven't read MY positions on the ongoing failure to address systemic institutional racial bias.

And in my opinion, this assignation piece by Matt ! is an outrageous piece of junk.

Reply

QuietlikeJul 1

I read your link. I've seen these stats numerous times. You didn't address the lack of fathers at all. As if families with one earner vs. families with two earners has nothing to do with wealth. Unbelievable.

Reply

DougAzJul 1

My point still stands believably true. There are families with fathers, (mine was gone in 68 at 14.. I was the 2nd earner - a janitor)... and those without.

But still okay - the BIAS GAP exists - the FATHER GAP exists. My statement still stands: No Policy of Liberals or Conservatives closed either GAP.

So what is to be done ?

Reply

DougAzJun 30

You dont know me Quitelike. I used the term Black Citizens above. Sorry I made you so uncomfortable sir.

Reply

AldenJun 30

Jonathan Capehart?!? You're going by his review and recommendation?

"First I am getting White Privilege on the review and recommendation of Jonathan Capehart. Second, Taibbi is a junk pseudo intellectual writer exposing vastly simplified concepts in verbal vomit without ever talking about the state of things"

Taibbi does point out the state of things with this book. Diangelo instructs whites not to generalize our thoughts and feelings towards people of color, and then turns around and assigns broad, scathing, generalizations about white people. Then the woman tells us to suck on it because we can't see the forest from the trees. We're not capable of seeing the landscape. Preaching at white folks as if we're the problem is both infantile and short-sighted. Our culture today is raising more children who don't view race as a dividing, yet Diangelo insists that it is so rampant that white's are one step away from needing a visit to re-eduation camps. The truth is--she see's race more than the average bear. I think she needs help beyond what Hannibal Lector could provide.

Oh, and Capehart...you must be a glutton for punishment. Dude rarely writes anymore. Why? The majority of readers agree that his opinions are about as hard to take as masturbating with a cheese grater

Reply

streamfortysevenJun 30

My bet is that people who are placed (or place themselves) in the White identity category will eventually turn against this indoctrination, and the reaction will be not towards less racial prejudice, but more - a lot more. Because what people like this author are doing are dividing America by race, thinking that they are advantaging minority populations by oppressing the majority population. "People Of Color Only" can quickly turn into its antithesis, "White Only", and it's so, so easy to do, once you're used to thinking of people as being not individuals, but as representatives of a collective group. It's the perfect way to turn the country against itself and to weaken it, so that people first think about Identity, rather than people as individuals, with individual agency and individual differences - and in that way, with two Identities alienated from each other, solidarity becomes impossible. It's the old Roman strategy - "Divide and Rule" - and it's nothing new: "But the Irish are not only quarrelers, and rioters, and fighters, and drinkers, and despisers of n*****--they are a passionate, impulsive, warm-hearted, generous people, much given to powerful indignations, which break out suddenly when they are not compelled to smoulder sullenly--pestilent sympathisers too, and with a sufficient dose of American atmospheric air in their lungs, properly mixed with a right proportion of ardent spirits, there is no saying but what they might actually take to sympathy with the slaves, and I leave you to judge of the possible consequences. You perceive, I am sure, that they can by no means be allowed to work together on the Brunswick Canal." - Fannie Kemble

White Fragility and Identity Politics are two modern pieces of this "Divide and Rule" strategy - and pushed by *exactly* the same kinds of people - slavekeepers who get great benefit from badly paid labor.

2Reply

KevinOKeeffeJun 29

I'm reminded of Germany, after the First World War. The "woke" may briefly achieve some sort of victory over American society...but the backlash they create will be a much more significant historical phenomenon. When you make people so scared, that they think committing acts of mass murder might be necessary in order to secure their families & homes, we're all gonna have a bad time. That's the one thing people always forget about the Third Reich ie. it was motivated by fear (of Bolshevist tyranny, and crushing poverty), more than anything else. And a lot of White people are getting scared of these seemingly deranged, proudly irrational imbeciles, and are frankly starting to wonder if we may need to use violence to defend against them. And I don't blame them. I'm starting to wonder myself.

3Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

So, let me see if I get this: Don't spook the fascist White Kultur Kampf Kriegern or they might retaliate. Safer just to let them have their way. Yeah, that's the way to keep a republican democracy intact. If only the North had used that strategy by not responding to the attack on Ft. Sumter we'd be so much better off today.

2Reply

OlafJul 1

If you count all white people as fascist you would have a point. Otherwise I would say you don’t get it.

Otherwise it is the accusations of irredeemable racism hurled at ordinary people going quietly about their lives which is perhaps starting to register and cause disquiet.

Reply

SkepticJun 30

I can't stand Bezos, but protestors built a guillotine in front of his house today. I'd say that message is pretty clear.

1Reply

jhnwlkJun 30

That would certainly have made the Bloat in the White House happy.

Reply

NancyJun 30

Thank you, thank you, thank you. And, btw, thank you.

2Reply

CertexJun 29

Just subscribed.

3Reply

JsamoJul 1

I just watched a talk with Slavoj Zizek where he described how him and his friends in the Yugoslav army used to make obscene ethnic jokes to each other as a way of bonding. He then described how this practice between groups stopped in the lead up to the civil war in that country. I hope that’s not happening here, but I fear it is.

1Reply

ServetusMJun 29

Struggle sessions are coming. The world has seen this before. Different "oppressor" and "oppressed"--but the same system. Get ready for it. People have been warning everyone about this now for 10+ years, since progressives on campus warped into "social justice advocates".

What's happening is simple. Its the exact same phenomenon as any cult which promises a utopia and than doesn't deliver. They need to create a new, more difficult to see, level of the issue they originally said was keeping the utopia from coming into being. For Marxists, the Utopia was a Communist society. The people who prevented that were Capitalists. When all the Capitalists were dead or in work camps, and the utopia had not come? Well, it became about subversive, hidden capitalists in society that were sabotaging things. For Social Justice ideologues, the utopia is all about true equality--where everyone is the same. The people who prevent this are racists. Except now nearly all the overt racists are gone, hell, a black man could be President, and yet...the utopia of equality has not come. When the ideology can't be wrong, right? So the hunt for subversive racism begins. The hunt for wrong think.

Religions always end up holding witch hunts. Because ideological heuristics always become wrong eventually (Simply because they change the environment and so, naturally become less accurate.) The problem is when your ideology has become so powerful that people base their lives on it, then changing it or dropping it when it becomes less useful or dated, is no longer an option. And so you need to blame something for your ideology no longer being accurate or failing to bring about what it said it would...Hence, witch hunts (Which are further exploited by those in power against their political enemies).

This will result in struggle sessions as we claw at each other to find out why the utopia hasn't come, and which of us secret sinners is responsible for the enlightenment not prevailing. This has all happened before, it will all happen again.

3Reply

Donald TwainJun 29

Struggle sessions are here. Just read the twitters.

2Reply

skeptonomistJul 1

It is somewhat disappointing to see nothing about the influence of economic interests on racism in this piece and the comments (I haven't read the book, but I would bet that economics are not prominent in it). This is important because the Republican party, not just Trump, has encouraged racial division to get support for their economic policies. Basically they have succeeded in promoting race war to distract from possible class war. One way to reduce the scope and effect of racism would presumably be to get the attention of whites in lower economic brackets away from racism and back to their economic or class interests. Maybe this approach will never succeed - Bernie Sanders in particular never seemed to make much headway with it - but it does not seem very constructive on either class or racial grounds to get people in whatever economic circumstances to arguing about the nature of their racial attitudes. This kind of division within division seems to be very much in Republicans' interest.

1Reply

ROD SANDERSJul 1

"the Republican party, not just Trump, has encouraged racial division to get support for their economic policies. Basically they have succeeded in promoting race war to distract from possible class war."

This partisan view is naive at best. The dynamic you describe is at least as much the result of Demonrats as Republicons. These parties are nearly indistinguishable. Meanwhile the media have gone out of their way to misinterpret and twist anything Trump says to shape public perception of him as a racist. It's been over 4 years of propaganda to create this image. Right now, it's at a fever pitch. Same with the Russia thing and the pandemic. It's the most advanced political disinformation campaign the world has ever seen.

The Deep State has controlled this govt for 75 years, no matter which political party holds office. I didn't vote for him but Trump has correctly identified our foreign policy as on the wrong path. Globalism is not the panacea for Americans that corporate globalists are selling. They can't control Trump like they can typical politicians. They can Biden and they could Clinton. The wedge issue of race is being used as a political weapon to try to dethrone Trump because their soft coup attempts have failed. We are all victims of a psyop.

1Reply

JacobJun 29

This ends on a very anti-Semitic note.

3Reply

cmcc_ausJun 29

I’ve been thinking about some of these points for a time. I’m an Old White Guy, not trying to make a name for myself as a writer, so I offer this partial thesis here, For Matt or any reader to grab and run with. A series of points:

#1. we are seeing the ‘left’ and ‘right’ flipping places. Who is driving these narratives and who benefits? The elite billionaires and their children, the stars of Hollywood and the mainstream media. These are the people who want to be the honored aristocracy, passing down their wealth and privilege And they pay bribes to get their children into the best colleges, assuring them the credentials of nobility.

#2. In the ancient regime, the church was called the First Estate; the royalty and aristocracy were only the Second Estate. Although they had more day-to-day power, their authority depended on the church, which defined the terms under which civil authority could exist, and without whose blessing, it would be overthrown. Sometime in the early 1800’s, the Press came to be called the “Fourth Estate”. They watched and reported the News, the fact of the day, and served as critics of both the church and the government. But in recent years, in the secular society where few care too much about the teaching of churches, the Press has ascended the papal throne of the First Estate. The Press defines the truth within which government can function. Matt has for a few years been exposing that change in the role of the Press. Of course the old discredited religions, whether Judeo-Christian or otherwise, are replaced with the devolving dogma of Intersectionalism. The dogma is beautiful beyond out human ken.

#3. And whose interests does this coalition of first and second estate serve? Not the ‘working class’ as Marx would define it. Their full-time well-paid jobs are outsourced internationally, or reduced to gig work, with few protections. Not ‘petit bourgeoisie’ small business – they are displaced by the Amazons. Rather , their demagoguery is pitched to the Lumpenproletariat, (German: “rabble proletariat”), according to Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto, the lowest stratum of the industrial working class, including also such undesirables as tramps and criminals. The members of the Lumpenproletariat—this “social scum,” said Marx—are not only disinclined to participate in revolutionary activities with their “rightful brethren,” the proletariat, but also tend to act as the “bribed tools of reactionary intrigue.” (Definition from Brittanica.).

Think about it. If you are person of proper diversity and want to run with this idea, you are welcome to it.

2Reply

J. C. SalomonJun 29

The Press has long since given up its role as the “Fourth Estate” in favor of being the “Fifth Column”.

3Reply

Ex Norwegian BlueJun 29

Your references to Orwell were very appropriate. One of the key things Orwell's "Newspeak" was supposed to accomplish was to make even EXPRESSING certain concepts impossible, like "Big Brother is ungood," or "it's okay to be white".

3Reply

JKozJun 29

We spent the better part of the 50s-60s-70s getting white people to NOT think of themselves as an unique identity. With 'Whiteness' and 'White Fragility' we've undone all that work in 5 short years.

3Reply

tom mitchellJun 29

The lesson the Honorable Elijah Muhammad gave to Malcolm X was the best advice: read the dictionary until you have memorized it. Recognize that whoever you are, you are capable of steering your own destiny. You are not now, and never have been, a victim. Your ancestors and brothers and sisters are not now, and never have been victims. Step out, be proud of who you are, and address others respectfully when you meet them. Have the confidence to know you are the one who will design, construct, and experience the life you choose. Be not again entangled in bondage, to any person, drug, power, or institution.

3Reply

John-MichaelJun 29

Boom!

Reply

KevinJun 29

Another hit out of the ball park.

3Reply

laura I guessJun 30

I remember when I liked the writing of Matt Taibbi. It was when I saw him as part of the muckrakers tradition. Now he just seems like a spoiled power broker who is trying to take down one of the weaker books of anti racism using sarcasm. During a pandemic. After the death of George Floyd. While Trump is still president and Putin has a bounty on American soldiers’ heads. Read Stamped from the Beginning. Have the guts to take on a better writer with your mocking. For someone who seems to make the same error White Fragility warns about—unconscious identification with your race while claiming not to see race—this is disappointing to say the least.

2Reply

spinmasterflexJun 30

LMAO at equating the murder of Floyd to Russian fakery.

2Reply

MxmJun 30

Won’t someone think of the children!?

Give us a recommendation for a “better writer” then. Because you, Jay and JhnWck above all fail to do so. Let’s tackle the steel man of these ideas. Is it Kendi? Crenshaw?

2Reply

Caek IsloveJul 1

POOTIN POOTIN POOTIN

Reply

cmcc_ausJun 29

It is all as transparent as the Emperor's New Clothes, but we are told that those are are true and worthy can see and understand it.

3Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 30

At some level you must be correct. However, the popularity of even more extreme black writers (such as Ibram X. Kendi) suggests that this poison has a broad audience. Andrew Sullivan wrote a serious take-down of Kendi calling his ideas 'totalitarian'. Kendi is, of course, super popular with the 'white guilt' set.

2Reply

jvmackJun 30

"White Fragility has a simple message: there is no such thing as a universal human experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but only by our racial category"-- others have pointed this out, but, no, this is not DiAngelo's message. We are individuals making choices. We exist in context, though, and white people don't understand the context of race and how it affects and has affected groups and individuals in this country for so very long. I don't get the objection to DiAngelo's take on Jackie Robinson. "The first African-American to break the color line"-- yes, that's how it's often said. Barack Obama, the first Black man to rise to the U.S. Presidency. Roger Bannister, first man to break the four-minute mile. An exceptional and hardworking person did what others could not. Sure, one could say this and not hate black people: one could say this and really not want to be racist. But saying it this way perpetuates the cognitive hydroplaning, which perpetuates the biz as usual racist system of this country, where some are thinking that all black people need to do is get their acts together, stop rioting or whatever, and be like Jackie Robinson. And once Jackie Robinson's in, white America gets to pat itself on the back, saying "wow look at these black people excelling here in our country." The depraved injustice that killed George Floyd doesn't exist in a vacuum. While imagining that Jackie Robinson was finally good enough to play with the white guys isn't the same thing as killing people, to refuse to think about how we white people tend to see the world and our places in it, and how we tend to see black people and their places, is to refuse to examine the context, the collective world view that we perpetuate, in which white people rule and black people are oppressed. And calling DiAngelo's ideas "Hitlerian"-- Taibbi's having a pretty emotional reaction to her book.

2Reply

Bill McNealJun 30

The fallacy of your argument manifests itself when any other racial, ethnic, or religious group is examined. Not to mention your treating "white America" as a monolithic group (which is racist). What happened to George Floyd was a travesty. It's also extremely rare, which is something that should be celebrated, because that sort of thing didn't used to be rare. This would not have made national news 30 years ago.

Taking DiAngelo's and your position leads to only one conclusion.....That the races can never be seen as equal by anyone, since race divides us all, ergo we should separate the races. That's insanity.

2Reply

birddogJun 30

Roger Bannister was white, fool

1Reply

jvmackJun 30

it went over your head

Reply

angelOJun 30

"The depraved injustice that killed George Floyd doesn't exist in a vacuum. While imagining that Jackie Robinson was finally good enough to play with the white guys isn't the same thing as killing people, to refuse to think about how we white people tend to see the world and our places in it, and how we tend to see black people and their places, is to refuse to examine the context, the collective world view that we perpetuate, in which white people rule and black people are oppressed."

Reply

StxbuckJun 30

“Makes The Art of the Deal read like Anna Karenina”. That line alone is worth this month’s $5.....

2Reply

ElleJun 30

It's nothing but one long Kafka trap. It would be so much more concise and on point to just say, "If you're white, you're a racist, and there is nothing you can do to change that." And then we could all just on with our respective lives.

2Reply

Peter HarrisJun 30

Humans are, more or less, an advanced species of ape. Go back roughly 6-7 million years and we meet our common ancestor with the chimpanzees and Bonobos. Our neocortex is very roughly 3 to 4 times the size of chimps. While we humans have great powers of abstraction, even the brightest among us fail to recognize that most of our problems come from a failure to analyze ourselves as animals. Regarding “racial” differences, the best researcher I know of who writes for the layperson is David Reich. I suggest you read or at least skim his book, “Who We Are and How We Got Here.” It gives a good view of how populations may vary genetically. (There is nothing to fear. His research does not support racism.) The problem with intellectual discourse is that humans think we are a metaphysically privileged being with a disembodied essence rather than a particular creature that is the result of millions of years of natural selection. The long term answer is to develop an evidenced base understanding of human nature and apply it to situations as we fit.

On a personal note, I happen to be descended from American slaves but grew up in aa happy, prosperous community with very few of my background. This caused me to explore many questions about identity. As I approach retirement age, I am convinced that until we give up magical thinking and embrace studying ourselves scientifically, our rate of progress will be slow. The problem is that we are emotional creatures who can reason, not rational creatures who have emotions. Neuroscientists have proven that emotions affect everything we say, do and believe. But, with discipline, we can come to a more evidence based view of our humanity. I guarantee you that love and compassion will survive the process.

1Reply

SkutchJun 30

Agreed. We just haven't evolved very far as a species emotionally and have deluded ourselves into thinking technological advancement is the same thing.

2Reply

Art EcksteinJun 30

“We are emotional creatures who can reason, not rational creatures who have emotions.” That nails it.

1Reply

Paul StrubleJun 30

The fact that Black Lives Matter advocates segregation is proof positive that is is just another franchise of the progressive movement. They have been destroying black families for over a century, and are only looking for victims to exploit to extract money from their credulous base. Just another storefront to peddle their shopworn socialist claptrap to the naive.

2Reply

MascotJul 2

One of the biggest problems with telling people WHAT to think instead of teaching them HOW to think for themselves is that when the inevitable backlash arrives, many of the people who bridle at being told what to think still don't know how to think for themselves. So many of them are inclined to react by embracing the polar opposite of the position that was browbeating them.

That contrary position is liable to have as many flaws as the one they're rejecting, if not more. And it's still telling them what to think. But it poses as the noble, independent-thinking resistance. And it relies more on flattery, promises of empowerment, and friendly persuasion than accusatory moralism. At least at the outset.

The real solutions are to be found with Critical Thinking, not with Critical Theory. Kneejerk reflex reaction against every goal and principle that Critical Theory purports to represent doesn't qualify as independent thinking, either.

Critical thinking relies on three main components: a single standard of ethical principles; erudition (broad, deep, detailed knowledge); and informal logic. The last one, informal logic, can be learned almost entirely online (but to get good, it needs to be practiced at every opportunity.)

Informal logic is learned by practice at skillfully detecting bad logic http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm That's a long list, because it includes almost all of the fine points. But if you learn all of it, very little will get past you.

The most commonly (ab)used logical fallacies comprise a much shorter list: https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies That's a good place to start.

Someone at the advanced level might find themselves criticizing some fine points of the explanations. And there are other web pages on the subject that a reader might find more helpful. But I think both of the sites I linked do the basics pretty well, and the authors deserve credit for that.

I admit it, I'm trying to recruit readers into the game. This could be as big as, like, FunBridge.

Reply

Conrad MctavishJun 30

Couldn't get Rolling Stone to print this hey Matt? Figures.

2Reply

Tom WorsterJun 30

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/announcement-to-readers-im-moving

1Reply

H.I. McDonnoughJun 30

“ It’s almost like someone thinks there’s a benefit to keeping people divided.”

I’ve been thinking that lately too. This is beyond just dividing people during an election cycle. Nothing is as it seems.

2Reply

Alex CoxJun 30

Ms DiAngelo appears not to have read or listened to the "I have a dream" speech. Dr. King didn't seek to be judged on the content of his character. He said he hoped that his CHILDREN would one day live in a land "where they will be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

King said many other sensible things race fantasists might ponder, such as: "We must all learn to live together as brothers, or we will perish together as fools."

2Reply

Wally LindJun 30

Well, if this woman is right and there can be no harmony between the races, then we might as well have the race war and expel black people from America! Luckily, what she, and others like her, write is pure hogwash and can be ignored as over intellectual tripe, and racial pandering. White privilege is probably a real thing, for at least half of the "white" people in America, but many impoverished white people have no 'privilege" at all, and are treated accordingly. They probably don't get stopped as often as black people, in the daylight, but crap vehicles they drive and the way they dress probably gets them stopped more than a well dress black man in a lexus. I know racism was strong when I was a young man, but it has eased, and is waning with each passing generation. Proof is in the protesting crowds in 2020, they were heavily multi-racial, with lots of young white faces, much more than in earlier decades.

1Reply

ScottJul 1

That may well be her motivation here, just as Hitler used Mein Kampf as a springboard for similar racial tropes. It's fucking GROSS and needs to be discounted by anyone with a working brain.

1Reply

laura I guessJul 1

Matt Taibbi this commenter is your new audience. I hope you’re loving it. Bernie or busters can’t help but make things worse just because your guy lost. Disgusting.

Reply

Jimmy RodriguezJun 29

Karen's guide to cancel culture.

1Reply

RemJun 30

Karen IS cancel culture. You are a Karen if you participate in it. And a snitch.

2Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

Capitalizing black while not capitalizing white when referring to race is called unequal treatment. When you treat people differently based on their race, it's called racism. When an author's words are treated differently based on race, the author is a racist.

I don't buy convoluted logic the AP stylebook racists use to try to justify their racism. It's way more blatant to display one's racism via "dog whistle" caps than the twisted logic certain racist reporters use to condemn Trump.

2Reply

ScottJul 1

White Fragility is the Mein Kampf of today's psycho Nazis.

It's every bit as racist, and to my mind, every bit as dangerous.

It tells me that the elite academics are actively trying to supplant the rule of law and the true equality we are working toward constantly to replace it with vibrant hate speech.

Time to start branding YTs and smashing their store windows. Next stop: round ups and ghettos.

1Reply

William CopleyJun 30

Mr. Taibbi, in today's world your intellectual honesty is a breath of fresh air and you are the bravest journalist I see right now. I admire you and fear for you.

Even if you are not a religious man may God be with you. He does work in mysterious ways.

2Reply

John Jack JoeJun 29

Well now I have to read it. The overwrought response is a classic example of “I resemble that remark!” -> Thou dost protest too much.

2Reply

BillJun 30

If you haven't read it, how can you possibly know that the response is overwrought?

1Reply

laura I guessJun 30

I’ve read it. Matt must know the book describes him to a tee and hence his howls of outrage. Ibram Kendi takes on the same subject with more gravitas and narrative skill. But Taibbi set in his crosshairs the weakest in the herd.

Reply

laura I guessJun 30

Exactly.

Reply

str33t_punkJun 29

I’ve always found the naming interesting - it seems intentionally divisive. Why do we talk about ‘white fragility’ ‘whiteness’ etc? It seems almost tailor made to puss off white people by using rhetorical tricks to imply simply being white is bad.

There must be some better way to name these phenomenon that is less intentionally divisive, and more global (I would argue that one could apply theories of ‘white fragility’, ‘whiteness’, and supremacy to the Han Chinese people - they just aren’t white, but they are a majority in their country and a lot of racism issues)

Who came up with these names? The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it must have been some outside force (Russia?) trying to stoke division

2Reply

AngelicaJun 29

It's from an outside force, but it isn't Russia.

2Reply

HankJun 29

The United Nations made a declaration on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination in 1963. I’m consistently unsurprised that most Americans (especiallt the liberals) have no clue this happened, and cannot perceive of a worldview where racial discrimination does not exist. Progressive, at this point, means stoking the fires of racial hatred.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 29

Hysteria about "white supremacy" is the McCarthyism of our time (with no help from Joe Stalin). From "reds under the bed" we have gone to "white supremacists under the bed". Guess what? It ain't real. The richest ethnic groups in America are non-white. "White supremacy" is a useful myth however.

One of the characteristics of our time is that hysteria is frequently inversely related to the facts. In China under Mao, "capitalist roaders" were supposedly everywhere and subverting everything. At that time, the number of actual "captialist roaders" (outside of jails and death camps) was around zero. China has vast number of very real "capitalist roaders" these days, but no hysteria. Hitler was hysterical about the supposedly omnipotent "Jews". The power of penniless refugees is not apparent to me. Hitler knew better. Not to be outdone, Stalin had his "doctors plot" (also involving Jews) and his famous show trials. Khrushchev admitted that it was all a fraud.

Now we have "white supremacy" and "racists under the bed". The very magnitude of the mania shows how false it is. The dominants ideology of our time is "diversity" (really racial quotas). For ever real Klan sympathizer, America has 100 (or 1000) "diversity" fanatics determined to find the "reds under the bed" (make that "racists under the bed").

Racism is very powerful in America, PC racism that is. Just the facts. Let’s try college admissions. Quote

“How much harder is it for an Asian-American applicant? Mr. Zhao and the complaint cite 2009 research by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade that found an Asian-American student must earn an SAT score 140 points higher than a white student, 270 points higher than a Hispanic and 450 points higher than an African-American, all else being equal. So if a white applicant scored 2160 on the SAT, lower than last year’s Harvard average, an Asian-American would need to hit 2300, well into the 99% percentile, to have an equal chance at getting in.”

So racism is actually quite real in the U.S. Anti-Asian racism is pervasive and profound.

If “white racism” and "white supremacy" were even trivially real, whites would be the richest group. The truth is otherwise and the numbers aren’t even close. Average family income for Indian Americans ($107,390), Jews ($97,500), Taiwanese ($85,566), all Asians ($74,245) is greater than Whites ($59,698). As can you see, non-white ethnic groups are at the top and Jews earn (far) more than non-Jewish whites. "White supremacy" is a useful myth however. Don't give it up.

2Reply

mcelroyjJun 29

Thank you Matt for this article. Another excellent piece. I am posting because I believe you have hit on something important that coincides with a topic I have been reading about lately. Thought it might help with future articles or arguments.

Its a bit a academic in tone and language but I found it a very useful explanation of how NTC (neoliberal thought collective, Mirowski 2017) has created this fog in the media.

Anyway, thank you for your work and strong voice. The video I am talking about is a lecture at the University of Pittsburgh in 2017 called "Hell is Truth Seen Too Late". Some good pieces around Adam Curtis, critique of George Stigler and some open eyed criticism of the NL left and right.

Cheers.

2Reply

mcelroyjJun 29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBB4POvcH18

2Reply

sharonJul 2

See you removed my comments>You can't even face the fact that you think you are capable of reading and right writing others condition in life without their involvement. OK hollywood

Reply

MikeJun 29

I never heard of this book until Tucker Carlson mentioned in on his show. I have always taken the position that I am proud to be white, proud of my ethnic heritage, mixed German and Irish, proud of my ancestry, and proud to be an American patriot. I will NEVER apologize for being white. Ever.

2Reply

Ben TurnerJun 30

"I never heard of this book until Tucker Carlson mentioned in on his show."

That's just sad that you rely on Tucker Carlson to tell you about things. You might want to get out of your Fox News bubble.

Reply

Truth GunJun 30

Ok school marm. You like telling others what to do.

1Reply

Joe JurdanaJun 29

The Reign of Terror ended with Robespierre‘s execution. Who will be the one to be intellectually or socially executed to end this terror?

2Reply

SkepticJun 29

Possibly Yale University, under pressure to change its name because its namesake was a slave trader. If that really happens, the neoliberal establishment will find a way to stop this. #CancelYale

1Reply

Dusan Vilicic HeldJun 30

Racialism is nothing more that the applicaion of marxian class (war) theory to race, just as feminism is to sex, and 'anti-speciesism' is to species. Just as marxian class (war) theory concludes the solution is the destruction and dissappearance of the burgeois capitalist class, feminism concludes the solution is the destruction and dissappearance of 'maleness' (be that by 'killing all men', or simply by 'making everyone queer', among others), 'anti-speciesism' concludes the solution is the destruction and dissappearance of humans, and racialism ('anti-racism') concludes the solution is the destruction and dissappearance of whites or 'whiteness'. It's all essentially the same marxian theory applied to different things, which is why these ideologies basically all exist in what's called 'the left'.

1Reply

CBByrdJun 30

Two thoughts: Lack of moral education of the past 2 generations has brought us to this. Character no longer counts, it seems Inclusivism is an idol above character or any other moral or societal or demographic particularities of an individual. ( see link Below to article). And racism IS an addiction. The addiction of all humanity is to sin. Self-seeking, self-justifying, self-celebrating sin. What addiction looks like in one person is different than what it looks like in another. But it is all rooted in that one source and has only one cure - changed hearts . In my tradition and “particularity” that means a relationship with Jesus Christ and living out of the virtues of his life and teaching. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2000/05/leading-children-beyond-good-and-evil

1Reply

Mary Elizabeth OberJun 30

Thank you for this article. It is a sad state of affairs that this book and DiAngelo have gotten such press without a lot of scrutiny. I resigned recently from a Unitarian Universalist church because of the toxic environment this type of action calls for. I've been demonize and mis-characterized for speaking differing views from the zealots who believe what she spews. And I am not alone. Your article did give me a snicker or two.

1Reply

Greg BargerJun 30

You are fortunate you have been "driven out" by the radical behavior. The simple knowledge of God can be found through a careful search of His Word. I recommend reading carefully one of the Gospels (like John) and then the First John letter. Unitarian Universalism is not orthodox Christianity. You won't find this kind of behavior in a trustworthy Gospel teaching church. I can recommend one or some if desired. Greg

1Reply

L M LewisJun 30

Thank you, Matt Taibbi, for the term "costless gesture" ("Democratic Party leaders, pioneers of the costless gesture"). I have been wondering why I could find no term for something so deeply embedded in America's political culture. Then it occurred to me that the oversight was intentional: If you can't name it, you can't shame it.

1Reply

sharonJul 2

Racism isn't systemic it is however institutionalized, hollywood made a stabbing attempt to naturalize US all. It was a big fail when they fired the same people for bringing out the insensitivities of another class of fellow citizens, due to hubris and control of the message without the experience to foment change. If we are ever able to >>>>>it has to be in the recognition of all groups of peoples contributions with retribution through acknowledgement, education, and civil rights for those that remain civil.

Reply

sharonJul 2

Black Americans say there is no white, what say the "folks" in the middle-east apartheid? https://balfourproject.org/balfour-and-palestine/ More killed than can train US cops to continue radical terror>There are no good guys>standing down is not how roosters preen.

Reply

SmaackJun 30

Nothing to add to the topic here. I just wanted to take a moment to thank Matt for his courage in a time when so little is being shown by our government and corporate elites. I'm very proud to subscribe to support your work.

1Reply

Cleetus SmithJun 30

When I was a child I saw the whites only water fountains, blacks forced to sit in the back of the bus, whites only seats at the counter in the local diner, and so much more. That was racism. There was no doubt about it and most everyone had no difficulty is recognizing it.

>

What we have today is something different. Is it really racism when we must be informed about it time and again in order to see it? When someone says "Your English is very good", we used to take that as a compliment rewarding the person for working so hard to learn English - a difficult task indeed. Now we are told that this is no longer a compliment and is now bigotry and racist. Other examples about where one person tries to compliment another person, likes how someone did something and inquires how they did it so they themselves could replicate it (once the sincerest form of flattery), etc., but we are now told that this is all racism. We are told there are dog whistles where certain words such as golf and Chicago are racist.

>

This is not racism. Period. This is an example of a people who are so overwrought in their hypersensitivity that they see everything through racist views. Gone is any concept of innocence, any supposition of a person simply trying to be nice evaporates, efforts to strike up a conversation based on shared experiences and such are now hostile. The list goes on.

>

What this truly is is hate. Instead of giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, instead of showing tolerance, instead of loving thy neighbor, we are now beaten constantly with accusations of anger. Their anger, not ours. They are filled with anger, with hate, with jealousy, with unreal expectations, and much more as they demand that everyone sees the world through their jaded eyes where every compliment is an insult, every attempt at reconciliation is worst than disgusting, where there are no solutions or forgiveness, etc. They demand their pound of flesh and it matters not one bit who you are as a person, what you have ever done, what you stand for, or what you believe. If you are a man, then you are guilty and if you are white then your sins are automatically multiplied. They are now demanding that whites be judged solely on the basis of skin color and not the content of their character. Is this not the very definition of racism? Is not the claim that minorities are incapable of being a racist inherently racist?

>

We now live in a country where the persecuted have become the persecutors and those that once suffered from racism have become the racists themselves. This is not progress.

1Reply

KenJul 1

Matt, I’ll be interested in reading you after you finish Ibram Kendi’s Stamped From The Beginning. Looking forward to watching you evolve on this subject.

Reply

jonJun 30

After the collective guilt comes collective punishment, just like it did for the Jews, bourgeois and the revisionists. All 100 million of them.

1Reply

LisJun 29

Matt, I've been reading your work since I saw you interviewed on The Keiser Report - your writing is fantastic, thank you. It's incredible the way this phenomena is playing out like a meta version of the events (rehearsal?) at Evergreen State College in 2017 - and Robin DiAngelo was a actor in that too. For anyone who hasn't caught up with Mike Nayna's multi-part documentary on YouTube covering the ideological meltdown which occurred on the Evergreen campus... it's extraordinarily prescient.

2Reply

Kyle ThiermannJul 1

Thank you Matt.

Reply

Cara MariAnnaJun 29

Ahh, some common sense. How fucking weird. I almost don't recognize it. Seriously...thank you!

2Reply

Will CJun 29

There was someone I remember who used crackpot race theory manipulation dressed up as "apostolic socialism" to prey upon poor urban black people and the idealistic young. His movement had male enforcers and a mainly white female priesthood. He mobilized his adherents to enhance the political power of hard left Democrats. Those same politicians gave him respectability, power, awards, and free reign in their city. It all came tumbling down when a pair of brave journalists broke from the polite concensus of the hive and shone the light of truth.

The city was San Francisco. The movement was the People's Temple. The man was Jim Jones. The reporters were Phil Tracy and Marshall Kilduff.

Not a perfect comparison, but I think we're faced with dangerous stuff here. You're in a great tradition and doing important work, amigo.

2Reply

MARCVS AVRELIVSJun 29

Bravo. This is just written perfection.

2Reply

Jennifer BuchananJun 29

THANK YOU for following your your own instincts and actually doing the work the press should be doing (in these times especially).

There is an excellent podcast I think you might enjoy that discussed the book several episodes ago. MoeFactz with Adam Curry (yes, the Adam Curry from MTV who actually helped invent podcasting! See/hear when he appeared on JRE here if interested: https://youtu.be/NaPKrZTUoUs)

For the MoeFactz ep on the book, start here: https://overcast.fm/+Tdomjmq7I/31:48

2Reply

MeMJul 1

Taibbi - You can really get to the heart of things when you don't drink the cool-aid. By your last sentence it seems like you might almost be getting it.

Reply

Ryan BellJun 30

This is complete trash. If I had to guess, you haven't even read the book. You should publish this in Quillette. They'd eat it up.

Reply

Mohammad HimarJun 30

Quillette better than any Maoist trash rag.

1Reply

Mohammad HimarJun 30

If whites, Asians, Jews, etc. are such bastards and racists, how is it that they freely let other racists to take and use the technology that they have developed so painstaikingly? When was the last time that American natives thanked the whites for electricity? Medicine? Textiles? Agriculture? Machinery? Automoiles? I can't recall when any of the Gods of the Woke religion (the so-called marginalized) have thanked the productive humanity for inventing and developing life saving and necessary stuff. 90% of science is historically the work of whites, Jews, Asians, Persians, etc.

1Reply

ChadmanJun 30

Progressivism is racism

1Reply

next.20.yrs@gmail.comJun 30

I would like to know how admitting/understanding ones white privilege moves the ball forward. Am I missing something b/c I can't see how this ideology gets rid of, or at least ameliorates, racism? I may be daft, so can someone please explain.

1Reply

Caek IsloveJul 1

Only after 50 Hail DiAngelos and six figures in consulting fees can a corporation be fully absolved of the original sin of white privilege!

Reply

deletedJun 30

deleted

StxbuckJun 30

Note how the national conversation on racial issues in the wake of the Floyd incident has rapidly moved from needed policing reforms-which have the basic support of everyone on the political spectrum from Trump/Limbaugh on leftward to “defund the police” and cancel culture insanity.....bottom line...nothing will change in neighborhoods in South Minneapolis or West Chicago or East Oakland...black lives still won’t matter there-but people like D’Angelo and Pelosi and Jimmy Kimmel and HR drones and Gen Z/millenial Instagram idiots sure will be proud of themselves by virtue signaling how newly woke they are. Divide and conquer only works if people allow themselves to be divided-and this country was NOT on the basic wrongness of the Floyd and Garner cases. Online cancel culture and violent assaults on private businesses, otoh.......

1Reply

LinJun 30

Comment below, "The depraved injustice that killed George Floyd doesn't exist in a vacuum."

Oddly enough, Tony Timpa appears to have suffered the same "depraved injustice," yet he's white. Why is it obvious racism in one instance, but . . . what, 'bad luck' in the other?

1Reply

KevinJun 30

Holy shit mat you're shit

1Reply

BadboyJun 30

Based on the stats, it should be indisputable that the police in this country have a negative bias toward blacks.

Based on the stats, it should also be indisputable that the police in this country have an even greater negative bias toward men. Especially young men.

There should be some kind of national call to action to immediately address this gross inequality, which has existed long before 1619.

At this point in time it should be obvious to everyone out there that the police are irredeemable sexist and ageist bigots.

What other possible explanation could there be?

1Reply

LisbethinsydneyJul 1

Outstanding article. Thank you.

Reply

MolakiJun 30

While I could perhaps learn a nugget of knowledge in this rather lengthy piece, I prefer to just remain happy with my whiteness, knowing that I am not a racist nor a white supremacist and not caring at all what someone else may think of me.

Reply

C WardJun 30

you're where I was until I voted for O. It was black on white date rape.

I'm sick to death of phony baloney black heroes who are just more scam artists. Bill Cosby was untouchable because he was cast as a black icon. Pity the poor women he ravaged.

Blacks are so desperate for role models, that they trot out one huckster after another ...

why isn't Larry Elder a major voice for BLM? How about Ben Carson? Candace Owens?

Because they make no excuses for a race gone rogue -- with an average IQ below 85.

1Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

I have found few white racists exist anymore. There were a lot when I was young. I'd guess about 10% max now and even those aren't overtly racist. They usually don't even realize they're racist due to their limited experience and dare I say, privilege. Among blacks I've known, I'd guess about 90% are racists. Many are quite overtly racist. They think they're victims due to their color so they're pissed. In a way, they have been devalued by our focus on technology and service industries development at the expense of labor.

It's easy to misinterpret Charles Murray's findings but they do confirm my experience and he is a real conscientious scientist. The jobs that we create and the economy we structure, if we truly value science, should take his findings into account. Don't force people to be what they are not just for the sake of some ideology based on flawed moral grounds. Recognize different strengths and abilities. America exported manufacturing to reduce pollution without taking our diverse workforce into account.

1Reply

SergeJun 30

This is a very important piece. Nice job tackling the topic, but please keep relatively measured and responsible treatment as this series is progressive both because it's an emotional topics and because the same entitled actors will try to skewer you to protect their feelings.

1Reply

Ryan DunovichJun 30

Book should be called “White Savior Complex, An Owner’s Manual.”

1Reply

Science Does Not CareJun 30

What is it about the human psyche that tends towards self-flagellation if not self-hatred? What kind of conditioning does it take for people capable of independent thought to eagerly subjugate themselves to a Great Leader or Great Idea, and further express their submission by denigrating their own value and significance? And how did people, in the context of conflict, real or imagined, trade the ideals of being magnanimous to those they have "conquered" (again, in reality or fantasy) for a new set of ideals that seeks to invert the power structure?

Why do some White People hate themselves?

1Reply

SkutchJun 30

The same reason every other race contains people that hate themselves I suppose.

Reply

Beethzart79Jun 29

Why stop now? White people have been taking the Trump approach of saying racism doesn't exist. Keep it up. It will go away, like magic, in just a few days.

You could also just use Trump's "I take no responsibility whatsoever".

Of course, the warmer weather might just make racism go away.

No matter what it takes, I think everyone should just continue to to project their racism on everyone else. Going on the offensive is the best defense.

1Reply

OlafJul 1

Which white people? All white people?

I heard some white people say racism does exist. But are all white people racist and only white people?

I believe tangential comments are the best defence.

Reply

DanSJun 30

There are about 954,837,096 white people on this planet. Which white people is Robin DiAngelo specifically talking about?

1Reply

Connecticut BoswellJun 30

Matt and readers: search for Toni Morrison’s essay on Huck Finn and you will see what a balanced view is. Obama would offer the same. But sadly, the very phrase “balanced view” used in any context about race is ipso facto racist. We are in the age of liberal facism.

1Reply

Douglas DriscollJun 30

I about shit myself when I read her take on Jackie Robinson. What a fucking know-nothing idiot!!

1Reply

Ed SullivanJun 30

All I can say is that I have read several books that cover the same ground as White Fragility, and this one is among the weakest. An alternative I highly recommend is Crystal Fleming's How to Be Less Stupid about Race (Beacon, 2018). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37823717-how-to-be-less-stupid-about-race

1Reply

Paul WeeldreyerJun 30

This is so good Matt, as is almost all of your writing. I'm on the Right, more or less (though more of an independent) and I'm really worried about what we're seeing. Some of us were warning about cancel culture on college campuses years ago; those warning signals were not paid much attention. Now those incredibly fragile social justice warriors who were at Wellesley 10 years ago are in the real world, and they're doing their best to destroy anything good in this country. We actually made real progress in race relations for decades, the idea of judging a person as an individual, by the content of his or her character, was a beautiful notion. Today, we're going backwards, as race essentialism is the newest virtuous belief contained within the religion of postmodernism. The woke Left is actively sowing division and discord, none of this is about reconciliation or reform.

1Reply

John LandreJul 1

Excellent piece Matt! Reminds me of the time the media slobbered all over Joan Peter's laughable and ludicrous "From Time Immemorial," or Charles Murray's equally stupid and debunked treatise, "The Bell Curve." Both authors were the darlings of their time.

Reply

Richard ComerJun 29

I read every article Matt puts out there. Makes me think, examine myself, and provides me more ability to articulate thoughts of my own. Much appreciated.

1Reply

CLJun 29

As an academic I take exception to the way you paint with such a broad brush: "This intellectual equivalent of the “ordeal by water” (if you float, you’re a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia."

Really that is BS unless you define "academia" as only the most outspoken of the ivy leagues. That "elite" academic institutions host people like DiAngelo, or for that matter "humility expert" David Brooks, does not mean that the sum total of what we do is do is sit in a tower and fight PC battles over intersectionality.

What it means is that when we go to the state to argue for our budget we have to fight off interrogation from random benchwarmers who heard an anecdote somewhere sometime from a student who thought the mean ol prof gave them an F for their hair or their hat, as opposed to the fact that they only showed up twice all semester. And it means that have people compiling lists to "out" the insufficiently loyal.

I expect that lazy crap from Fox not this.

1Reply

David PrejeanJun 29

Great piece, but I just wish he had a clearer, less obtuse writing style as what he's saying needs to be spread far and wide.

Reply

Patrick BreitenbachJun 29

The whole review could be distilled to this: "It takes a special kind of ignorant for an author to choose an example that illustrates the mathematical opposite of one’s intended point, but this isn’t uncommon in White Fragility, which may be the dumbest book ever written. It makes The Art of the Deal read like Anna Karenina."

1Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

I doubt he's read "The Art of the Deal."

Reply

Paul Alan ThompsonJun 29

"White fragility" is the stupidest diktat ever promulgated by the Woke Masters of the Universe. I admire Robin DiAngelo. She has become a multi-millionaire by convincing people that they are racist. Wow. That's completely amazing.

1Reply

Tom WorsterJun 29

The curious thing for me is how eager her audience is for DiAngelo's flagellation. It's like yoga and kale, unpleasant things that make you feel good about your efforts to do better.

1Reply

SkepticJun 30

Once you sign on, you can be one of the intellectual and moral elite looking down on the unwashed, unenlightened and deplorable lessers. All for the price of a trendy book. You don't even have to read more than a few pages; just display it ostentatiously. People have always sought out class markers of this kind--particularly the upper middle class. It's very important to distinguish oneself from the rubes.

Reply

Tom WorsterJun 30

Yes, that's the ROI on the self-improvement that DiAngelo sells. It would be OK if it would not function as a distraction from and alternative to the engaging in the work needed to reduce inequity.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

So you're saying she wan't in "National Lampoon's Vacation."

Well, what the heck does she know about Wally World then. Charlaton!

Reply

Sea Mik_cJul 1

Excellent rush

Reply

WazoomannJun 29

Here's an interesting question. Some of "us" are half WASP and half some other dark/brownish color. And that "us" is growing rapidly as % of population. How should we act? Is the "white privileged" DNA racist? What about the other half/quarter/eighth or whatever? Or is it only if I have a deep S. Florida tan? Someone please tell me how to behave.

1Reply

PattyJun 29

Beautifully and thoughtfully written. Thank you.

1Reply

JesseJun 29

Will the larger article for subscribers call out Tim Wise and his garbage? Because Wise is basically DiAngelo but a thousand times worse, especially since Wise openly brags about being "unbannable" on social media (literally bragging that he has friends at Facebook and Twitter who will protect him no matter how many times he breaks the rules on the sites) and openly advocating/pushing for cancel culture on steroids.

1Reply

Russell Scott DayJun 29

Racism is the gift to the corporations who have been able to underpay White, Black and Women who are surprised they are in the Working Class. I designed a currency based on human capital as reflected in actuary tables and combining the Treasury and Insurance Co. All citizens would be given Whole Life Insurance policies from birth. In some ways it resembled the Baby Bonds of Darrity and Hamilton. I had correspondence with them and they said "What about Reparations." I am not opposed to reparations. The aim I had was to make life good for all labor. I do have to say that since the Police have been made into special people whose murders count more than the murders of what they call civilians there has been a degeneration of the society. When I pointed out that in my own family there are little to zip records for the companies their wage slave work would prove the injustices they suffered and were only alleviated when the GI Bill gave my father and other fathers who had survived access to higher education. (I was not aware that the GI Bill was not available to Black veterans as widely as it was to Whites.) My invented currency is not as pragmatic or powerful as is fiat sovereign wealth dollars. The great economist Randall Wray was kind enough to say "I don't like insurance." However I had a goal that bypassed all of the issues of race and was about the difficulties of class. As another difficulty for my small nation of airports at this time it is a model that is bereft of real territory. The US has a great deal of territory. According to the best economists of this day the US could easily pay reparations and could easily pay for healthcare and education as well as defense. Whites that vote against their own interests because Blacks and others might benefit same as they would are what racism is all about.

1Reply

ErelisJun 29

In America's desparate hour of need, white America turns to pyschobabble and navel gazing.

1Reply

D.K.Jun 29

The moment Taibbi assigns this same energy to The Bell Curve, I'll read more of his writings. For now, it seems he's just butt-hurt he didn't think to take advantage of fake corporate guilt and a book that could be part of the, "How to Guide of Corporate Consulting Series, Book #723: Playing Corporate Racism Dominatrix for a Day - Where the $$$ Are."

1Reply

BobJun 29

Thanks for the review of a book I've seen advertised in Amazon as something to read during the pandemic..no kidding..

1Reply

AWJohnJun 29

You're great, and we arent all racists like she would like too, you dont teach empathy you feel it and its your job not to hide it, but it was Jimmy Fallon not Jimmy Kimmel

1Reply

AWJohnJun 29

sorry you've corrected it to Fallon, but I've read it in the protonmail and I was induced in error, but nevermind di jimmy who?! what matters is the light this article glows in a society completely crazed with 2 old farts running for more 4 years of sacrificing a great wonderful people who work hard and dont even have healthcare to face the current situation, a people made by all races and genders that compose the human race.

1Reply

jmJun 30

I appreciate Matt pointing out how the doctrines being preached so well suits "corporate Americas instinctive hostility to privacy, individual rights, freedom of speech, etc. I'd like to see a deeper exploration of this idea, Matt. What is etcetera?

Reply

StxbuckJul 1

It’s basically Office Space, if Lumbergh became “woke”.

Reply

JeffJul 1

Somehow, I have come away not liking the book or this particular review of it.

Reply

AldenJun 30

https://youtu.be/wjHg65JORi8

This video clip is called "Debunking myth most commonly told by white people"

She's fond of placing intitials after her name, i.e. PH.d. This clip proves the adage that phd stands for "piled higher, and deeper".

She offers no solution to this issue, other than "read this, and make yourelf uncomfortable"

Reply

jonathan bellJun 30

thank you

Reply

Dennis TopczewskiJun 30

If MLK were resurrected and shown black millionaire entertainers and athletes, black police officers and police chiefs, black mayors of major cities and black city council members, black members of congress and the senate, and a recent black president, how would he be convinced that racism is systemic and worse than it has ever been? Frankly, race is the least interesting aspect of an individual. There is a profound racism inherent in blaming whites for the condition of blacks in the US as it removes any agency for altering their future leaving them with hands out seeking recompense from the table of whites.

Reply

Lipo DavisJun 30

Anyone who claims America is structurally racist doesn't understand racism.

Reply

MCJun 30

Perhaps if all the white people who believe in their original sin did the decent thing and killed themselves, they would open up opportunities for non-white people and give those of us who dismiss their confected anxiety and sub-Marxian word salads a nice breather.

Reply

Morris PatakyJun 30

The notion that racism can be eradicated like polio is a fallacy, and a pretense to have our individual liberty taken away by a "benevolent" and "moral" government.

Reply

ccofferJun 30

To the subhuman vermin who populate the left, hating white colored people is the highest virtue.

Reply

Nandi RussellJun 30

I stopped reading after a few paragraphs of seeing your Fragility on parade... Seriously, I wrote these exact words to my friend that sent me this drivel... "I am only a couple paragraphs down... What did you find worth my reading about this article? It is very interesting to me when people take their interpretations as gospel... 'A positive White identity is an impossible goal'? This is why I facilitate books. I don't make them a monument ever..."

I hope you have what it takes to be in the future...

Reply

Morris PatakyJun 30

I can understand that Matt needs to throw a a little Trump bashing at the end of each paragraph to reassure his liberal audience that he's one of the "good guys", but I take issue with this line . . . "At a time of catastrophe and national despair, when conservative nationalism is on the rise and violent confrontation on the streets is becoming commonplace". Is Matt saying that one follows the other or that they are the same thing? Seems like he's trying to pin "violent confrontation on the streets" to "conservative nationalism is on the rise". I don't think it's the conservatives Burning, Looting, and Murdering on the streets Matt.

Reply

Stephen JohnJun 30

The party of 'science' is now creating social science out of whole cloth and expects that the leftist borg (media, academia, Hollywood, politicians) will lap it up. It's like they're not even trying anymore to hide their horse shit with a patina of believability...

Reply

Morris PatakyJun 30

Well done Matt. DiAngelo is a giant amongst idiots. Nice to hear that a liberal can recognize the fatally flawed ideology being produced by below average students indoctrinated by the social science departments. The output of these pretenders is pure dribble as proven by Professors James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian's academic hoax, in which they got seminal works such as “Human Reaction to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland” published by leading intersectional publications. I guess that academia; having spent two decades creating these over privileged nonsense peddlers, must now try to find gainful employment for them as part of "human rights" corporate tribunals/inquisitions.

Reply

John MurphyJun 30

The entire concept of this book is built on the premise that minorities are inferior to white people. The democratic party has been pushing this concept for 170 years. The party of the KKK is alive and well, just a twist on it s racist ways.

Reply

Mitch KumsteinJun 30

Yeah, Right, You got a PHd in Multicultural Education from the University of Washington in Seattle in 2004; her area of research is in Whiteness Studies and Critical Discourse Analysis, tracing how whiteness is reproduced in everyday narratives.........................and the farmer took another load away, and you could tell by the smell, it wasn't hay......she gonna get the Rachel Dolezal Chair for Black Studies and Racial Equality and Justice...................you can only hallucinate so much.......???

Reply

asdfJun 30

According to Matt it's wrong to write a coronavirus mask exemption for blacks on the basis that it mentions race. We instead need to take a nuanced middle position between racism and antiracism and force the black population of lincoln county to choose between either making racists violently angry by wearing a mask in front of them or to break the law by not wearing a mask. Avoiding any mention of race to avoid causing racism is definitely MLK's dream and he didn't have any politics outside of not being violent don't look into that.

Reply

Tory JosephJun 30

I haven't read the book, just excerpts, but it seems to me that you have missed the point. Just like other popular movements in a positive direction (MeToo), some people can ruin it by over exaggerating. "Fetishize the unbridgeable nature of our differences"?? I don't think she's asking you to do that.

Reply

AliasJun 30

I read a survey that seems to be under reported or unavailable that asked the question:

Is the plight of the many statistical deficiencies in the African -Amercian community due to due systematic racism - or are they mainly caused by cultural attributes that that lead to bad life and individual decisions?

I think the answer is "All of the Above" .

Reply

MarioJun 30

Well written David. Thanks for taking on the Jackie Robinson issue. Always enjoyed your perspective during the "Heat days" - Still do. Hope all is well w/you and family. Mario + Dianne

Reply

J. EJun 30

It's simple "White Fragility" is another alt-left conspiracy theory. :-)

Reply

AntipodeanJun 30

I stumbled upon this British guy recently...seems relevant. He even mentions Matt's "ostrich article" in the video below!

"...Rebel Wisdom is a media platform founded by BBC & Channel 4 filmmaker David Fuller, and co-founded by writer Alexander Beiner. It is centred on the conviction that we are seeing a civilisational-level crisis of ideas, as the old operating system breaks down.

Fuelled by social media, many have become trapped in reaction and ideology, yet big questions can only be explored with open-minded, self-reflective, grounded conversations..."

If nothing else, I love the title of his recent video ;-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkKnOEQlwl4

Reply

angelOJun 30

I'm in this thread to talk about the topic at hand; not the one that just pulled out of your ass in a vain attempt to change the subject. Thereby illustrating the white fragility that DiAngelo describes.

Reply

ROD SANDERSJun 30

Oh yeah, I remember DiAngelo. Wasn't she in "National Lampoon's Vacation?"

Reply

PaulJun 30

I read the book as well. It was so poorly written and sensationally dumb, I couldn't believe it... and yes, it was provided to me at work. It's an insipid argument meant to enslave white people in a cycle of guilt so as to keep the race-hustler cottage industry in the green. Pathetic.

Reply

ScottJun 30

The tail is indeed wagging the dog and we're seeing shitty Hollywood scripts play out irl.

Can't people just be "people" and we all work to maintain the best ideals of our society together???

Oh, I see... if people did that there would be no need to have corporate whores masquerading as "elected leaders" while undermining the well-being of the whose taxes pay their salaries/benefits/retirement security details, etc. and vote for them in the first place.

It's nice that at least we're all sitting here with our eyes open. There's benefit in knowing ahead of the sleeping BipartisanBots.

Reply

RamiJun 30

Ok, some here wrote about “not entitled In the first place”, Referring obviously to whites people, but I just can find the original post after I had to go back and log in, but here is my answer to that’s statement:

Why do you think is “not” entitled in the first place? Real life doesn’t work that way. You see, people are born. They are NOT responsible of when, where, under which conditions and to which parents. A baby is born and in most cases in taken to their parents home, which can be a castle, a nice home in the suburbs, a shack, a trailer, or to an orphanage.

People born has NO control over these so called “entitlements”. The child of a rich lawyers or doctors family will live in a wealthy surrounding, will go to a good school, then to college, will become a professional and will most likely inherit his parents practices, contacts, etc. or will be a failed person.

That’s NOT entitlement, that’s life! That’s the life his/her parent worked for, to build a better future for their offsprings to build on their own efforts. So yes, so called “entitled” people ARE indeed entitled to inherit the wealth of their parents .That’s what America (and the world) is about. One generation to build and create for a new one and so on. That’s how humanity went from Stone Age to cell phones.

I’m sure the likes of Bill And Melinda Gates didn’t throw the kids in a trailer trash and said: “Sorry Kiddo you have to start from scratch because ‘they’ (whomever ‘they’ is) will say that you were born ‘privileged and entitled’.

I wish more people were capable of thinking more using common sense that hearts and feelings.

Reply

Matt TiabullshitJun 30

you should stick to fake rape stories in shitty mags like rolling stone

Reply

CertexJun 30

This race huckster wrote the current UK No. 1 book on the same subject as this 'white fragility' rubbish. A racist disgrace.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/21/reni-eddo-lodge-uk-book-charts-debate-racism-game-some-dont-want-to-play

Reply

Paul DiNucciJun 30

Rampant cultural Marxism in academia leaves intelligent Americans wondering where these pompous morons want to take our nation. Seems academics blissfully imagine American dystopia in which they rule and judge others based on the color of their skin, exhibiting the very racism they claim to eschew. Connecting financial dots leads us to undeclared billions American universities have received from the Communist Chinese. The U.S. justice department already has arrested a number of professors recently for this, and the investigation is ongoing.

Reply

JimJun 30

It's unfortunate that Matt Taibbi thinks he needs to keep throwing all these fly-kicks at Trump and conservatives and it's probably futile anyway if he's hoping to maintain any credibility on the left. Sure, he writes or wrote for Rolling Stone but so what? No one's safe now.

That said, this is still a great article notwithstanding and I look forward to reading the longer version too.

Reply

cheefloJun 30

Mr. Taibbi has been making a lot of sense lately, but he's having trouble squaring it with the approved leftist narrative that he has propped up for years. He seems to be entering a liminal space, a space where you have left something behind, yet you are not yet fully in something else.

Reply

RI RebelJun 30

Maybe Mr. Taibbi is just growing up.

Reply

JDVJun 30

"Of course the upside such consultants can offer is an important one. Under pressure from people like this, companies might address long-overdue inequities in boardroom diversity."

This is all that matters to those who embrace the idea of white fragility. Results. The end justifies the means. Wait, where have I heard that before?...

Reply

Mark SlettenJun 29

>...a view probably shared by a lot of 4chan readers...

Or more accurately, a view espoused by a lot of 4chan users who probably don't really believe it, but like trolling.

Reply

PPES SCANJun 29

So refreshing to read a criticism of this disturbing race based construct.

Reply

randomengineerJun 29

Wait until they get hold of water tank designations in RVs. :-)

Reply

RI RebelJun 29

And, shocker, I am not apologetic nor embarrassed about being white. Nor am I a racist.

Reply

mcelroyjJun 29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBB4POvcH18

Sorry Matt, here is the Mirowski video I thought might be of help.

Cheers

Reply

S. Ivory, PhDJun 29

Yes and yes and yes. 1) Mf. Taibbi, I would be very interested in hearing your take on the utter absurdity of allowing white supremacy marches to take place, while all this other is going on. 2) And can you explain to me, as I am completely bewildered by it, why antisemitism is (once again) discarded as problematic, even though Jews are the primary targets of such marches and discourse today and seemingly forever? Instead, why are they being lumped in with all who exercise white privilege, as if the most recent, most heinous and most obvious genocidal activities never occurred, and where they are recognized, are distorted so that they will be seen as anti-black, not anti-Semitic?

Reply

Francisco d"AnconioJun 29

I have to say DiAngelo always looked hot as Ellen Grisworld in the National Lampoon Vacation movies.

Reply

johnJun 29

Critical race theory is the Left's creationism. Whereas creationists see God everywhere, critters see The Man everywhere. Actually, it's more like Torah study in its voluminous mental gymnastics to read racism (eternal, omnipresent god) into everything. You can't say that though, because that's antisemitic. And we must be vigilant anti-antisemites.

Reply

MadisonJun 29

Being part of the majority in any culture is going to be an advantage.

If you are Chinese you are going to have a better chance at being successful in China than a white man.

A black man in Nigeria will do better in Nigeria than a Mexican that doesn't know the language and culture.

It isn't "white privilege", it's majority privilege.

The only reason the left is so focused on whites is because white majority countries have build the richest and most successful countries.

Reply

The PurgeJun 29

Fully agree with Skeptic. Your best, thx!!

Reply

TimJun 29

Thanks for the great content. Always spot on commentary.

Reply

inmate-6574311Jun 29

It's polylogism.

You beautiful dinosaur. Never stop writing.

> No one mentioned Communism or the Hiss Case until we sat over our coffee in the living room. Mrs. Philip Jessup had just used her personal good offices to try to get me off TIME. Luce was baffled by the implacable clamor of the most enlightened people against me. "By any Marxian pattern of how classes behave," he said, "the upper class should be for you and the lower classes should be against you. But it is the upper class that is most violent against you. How do you explain that?" "You don't understand the class structure of American society," said Smetana, "or you would not ask such a question. In the United States, the working class are Democrats. The middle class are Republicans. The upper class are Communists." (Whittaker Chambers, Witness, 1952, p.616)

Reply

BlarryGJun 29

When it comes down to it, how does one "prove" one's race. There are basic tribes in Africa that are quite divergent from each other, and American Blacks have strongly intermixed with Whites since they arrived in America. One would have to do a study, biased by human judgement collecting blacks, whites, Asians of many different sorts, Indians, Native Americans, Hispanics (of many mixes) in to "absolute" categories, and then do some average genome of them to say who was which race ... and mixed people would even then be near some interpretation of a categorical boundary.

The whole thing is silly ... and pro-fascist.

Reply

DaveJun 29

You are one of the few in the media I know of today that sees, writes, and analyzes based on common sense, not political bias. Keep up the good work. This country needs more of you.

Reply

Scott SpiegelJun 29

That was Fallon no? Not Kimmel

Reply

Ibis RexJun 29

It’s funny how only white racism is the only racism that is impactful.

Reply

minitigerJun 29

So, I haven’t read DiAngelo’s book, nor do I ever intend to, but judging from the few excerpts that Matt quotes in this article, she seems kind of, um, racist.

Reply

Milan van EijkJun 29

It is also happening across Europe. However, it isn't as prominent. At least not in The Netherlands.

Oef this will get Matt into trouble. Brave soul! Never stop :)!

Reply

GgJun 29

Typos in this article - needs editing

Reply

Scott FrasierJun 29

Well, Matt, you really need to repent and sign up for one of those anti-racism courses. It is obvious that you are a poster child for race-blind racism. Please publish your diploma when, if you pass this (impossible?) milestone, and we can agree not to shun you and your offspring.

Reply

Peter SchaefferJun 29

"To Kill a Mockingbird" is both racist and sexist. Whatever happened to #believewomen? It's just obvious that Mayella was brutally sexually assaulted and sexists are trying to get her attacker off.

Reply

© 2020 Matt Taibbi. See privacy and terms

Publish on Substack