Rebecca's Reviews > White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism

White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
F 50x66
's review

did not like it

Half a century after the Civil Rights movement, vast disparities exist between blacks and whites in America. First and foremost, these group inequalities are caused by deep, historical trauma created by white racism and racist policies aimed against black persons and black culture. If slavery and Jim Crow caused a gaping wound, Civil Rights stitched it up; but underneath the wound still festers. How does this wound – the entrenched inequities between blacks and whites in America – continue to exist?

Does the answer to that question exist? I have read and heard a variety of black thinkers try to answer it as they look through different windows upon the situation. They have examined welfare, affirmative action, the black cultural prohibition against “acting white” and being studious, the victim mentality, the war on drugs, the “prison industrial complex,” school inequality, voter suppression, police brutality, and gun violence. All of these current realities take place in a nation in which blacks overall have much less wealth than whites because of the historical legacies of racist policies that forced blacks off any road to financial success.

Any one of these situations is dizzyingly complex. Functioning together, they (and no doubt other factors) produce this vast reality that we call racial inequity. There is no way that any one person can understand it all. It is a mountain of pain, tragedy, and injustice. Overwhelmed, one seeks a way to go forth in one’s thinking, one or two foundational principles that will allow one to help ameliorate the situation, or at least not make it worse.

Enter Robin DiAngelo. White Fragility is an explanation of Robin DiAngelo’s invention of the same name, an idea that seeks to explain why it is “so difficult to have conversations about race with white people,” in hopes that examining this will get whites to the point where they can do their part to dismantle systemic racism.

Her book stinks.

Never mind that White Fragility is based entirely on anecdotal evidence (DiAngelo’s own experiences and that of her African-American acquaintances), vast & false assumptions, stunningly faulty reasoning, zero-sum/us-and-them thinking, purely ideological (almost religious) zealotry, and laughably contradictory strictures.* Never mind that DiAngelo seems to believe that guilt-ridden navel-gazing is an effective tool for change. Never mind that she speaks for all people of color, saying that racism is a personal scourge “24/7” (they don’t all believe that). Never mind that she is the white savior extraordinaire, who views all black people as victims always, and only whites as powerful agents. Never mind that she encourages whites to patronize blacks in daily interaction, humoring them with mea culpas, and never arguing as equals, never challenging. Never mind that she hopes to combat racism using racist tools – racial stereotyping and racial prejudice. Never mind that she decries bad/good dualism (racist – bad, nonracist – good) even as she all-unwittingly pushes her own bad/good dualism (fragility – bad, stamina – good). And just don’t even bother being annoyed, frustrated, or aghast at the way she scorns the human emotions of white people – she and all her white friends will only call you “fragile” and laugh that their circular reasoning was proven right.

Never mind all that. The main reason this book stinks is that it focuses the attention on the wrong problem, one that has very little evidence to support its effects. The problem that DiAngelo sees as the fount of all modern black misery is modern white racism. Careful, though – she does not use the dictionary definition of racism, which is a belief in one’s own racial superiority and hostility towards people of other colors and races – what we can also call racial animus. Racism, according to DiAngelo and her ilk, is this mysterious essence, this inner miasma, that inhabits every white person (and no one else). The everyday interactions between whites and blacks, soaked with this inherent bias, is what produces the inequities we see. Racism and whiteness are identical in her book.

So – the fatherless African American family? If we are to believe Robin DiAngelo, it’s caused by your shadow thoughts, white people. The much poorer health outcomes for blacks on average? That’s on you, O guilty one. The fact that homicide is the #1 killer of young black men? You guessed it: it’s all to do with your secret “knowledge” that your life is better the way things are. The fact that those homicide victims are being killed by other young black men? You are a racist for even bringing up that fact. Don’t worry, though: all white people are racist. Just admit it, and all problems will be solved.

I don’t know what to think about the fact that White Fragility is a bestseller with so many glowing reviews. I guess unfettered ideology is attractive. I’m very, very sorry that anyone believes what Robin DiAngelo says. People, please, I beg you: If you want to make the world a better place, study policy. Understand that it is very complex and full of unintended consequences. Examine data, question assumptions. Don’t take this stuff on faith; it’s too important. Challenge both liberal and conservative racial orthodoxy. Think past the labels – treat yourself and others as human beings and individuals. Regard yourself and all others as agents – agents of personal and political change, agents of compassion and empathy.

Please don’t waste your time on the racial prejudices and double standards of identity-zealots like Robin DiAngelo.



* Examples of contradictory strictures: White people must be vulnerable. White people must not show their feelings. White people must not become silent. White people should be silent. White people must not leave the room when they’re upset. White people must leave the room when they’re upset.
783 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read White Fragility.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

December 7, 2018 – Started Reading
December 11, 2018 – Shelved
December 11, 2018 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-50 of 69 (69 new)


Stephanie Allen Eye-opening review.


message 2: by Joe (new) - added it

Joe Xtarr 1. Why do you believe that the dictionary has the best definition of racism? Do you think that dictionaries are written without bias?

2. The author explicitly states that our personal interactions don't cause racism, but only reinforce it. So, your statement about individual whites causing all black problems is wrong. I encourage you to revisit those chapters.


message 3: by Rebecca (last edited Feb 18, 2019 08:26AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Rebecca Joe wrote: "1. Why do you believe that the dictionary has the best definition of racism? Do you think that dictionaries are written without bias?

I never said that the dictionary has the best definition of racism. As to bias, lexicographers in general try to describe language the way it is actually used, not the way they think it ought to be used (they leave that to notes on usage). In this regard, the dictionary definition of racism is limited, because the much more common definition of racism is racial prejudice and racial stereotyping. Even so, it is a hundred-year-old definition with a real working history, and it is disingenuous in the extreme for Robin to use a new definition and then accuse racism itself of using the "wrong" definition - the dictionary definition.

2. The author explicitly states that our personal interaction..."

The author defines racism and whiteness with the same definition.

Thanks for your encouragement, but I do not plan on revisiting anything written by Robin DiAngelo, if I can help it. She is a white supremacist in woke clothing.


message 4: by Joe (new) - added it

Joe Xtarr Your entire critique is based on false premises about the book, so it's impossible to read your review as written in good faith. This would be quite unfortunate for anyone who typically browses the bad reviews first, since they won't be given an honest examination of the work. Since there are so many good reviews, I can only hope that your agenda will not be met.


Rebecca No, you are wrong. My entire critique is based upon things that DiAngelo says. For starters, she has stated multiple times that the greatest danger to people of color are white liberals. (To judge from how popular her book is, maybe she's right in that statement ... just not in the way she thinks!) My numerous other objections are also taken straight from the text. And since my "agenda" is to shed light on the real present-day causes of racial disparities, and to see policies created that actually help poor people and incarcerated people, I'm sorry that you hope my agenda will not be met.


message 6: by Joe (new) - added it

Joe Xtarr Let me know what you're working on and I'll support it.


Willi As a WOC the anecdotal evidence is REAL. Do not take her examples lightly. Of course there are exceptions but she was talking about patterns.


craige Thank you so much for weighing in, Willi.


message 9: by Asderan (new)

Asderan Great review, expresses many of the issues I have with the "anti-racist" philosophies as well. I find that the people who are vehement believers in this philosophy generally are not educated very broadly on social issues, history, etc, and have only read perspectives from the side they believe in. For most of them, this is their introduction to the topic as a whole and they have no idea how much they are missing.


Vanessa Murakami On point! This book is utter garbage!


message 11: by LadyS (new)

LadyS  Balanced review. Objections to this book are valid and should be considered in the arena of racial conversations. Sadly that is not the case, there is usually only "one voice" accepted which creates and reinforcing more divide.


Vanessa Murakami Couldn't agree more, LadyS!


Lois Barbary Pirates are Arabic, Vanessa Murakami.
Black people across the diaspora asre descended from West Africans.
Barbary Pirates were part of the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman Empire was Arabic.
That awkward moment where your racist comment is nonsensical and irrelevant.
It has zero to do with this book,'
Just say you hate Black people and go.


Lois Barbary Pirates are Berber Peoples you ignorant asshole.
They are Arabic by every definition of the word.
Nice try but you remain loud and wrong.


Lois Vanessa wrote: "Countering truth with lies won't make it true, love. Also, keep insulting me for all I care. The hole you're digging for yourself isn't deep enough yet."

What lies?
Barbary Pirates are Berber Peoples and Arabic.
Black people are descended from West Africans, not North Africans or Arabs.
You are wrong and racist and you have egg on your face.
I'm embarrassed for you.


Vanessa Murakami Don't be, love. Truth's on my side.


message 17: by Lois (last edited Jun 17, 2020 10:58AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Lois Vanessa wrote: "Don't be, love. Truth's on my side."

What truth? You didn't provide any facts and were unable to substantiate anything you said.


Lois Vanessa wrote: ."

There was never dialogue.
Just you regurgitating your vile and ahistorical racism.


Lois I'll give you another 2 hours to search Google and see if you can misunderstand anything else.


Vanessa Murakami More insults? Keep them coming, love. My, but you really can't read, can you!


Lois Vanessa wrote: "More insults? Keep them coming, love. My, but you really can't read, can you!"

Apparently I read and comprehend better than you since I know that Barbary Pirates are Berbers and North Africans aren't the same as West Africans.
Nice try Karen.


Vanessa Murakami Lois, the gift that keeps on giving... insults, that is.


Lois Vanessa wrote: "Lois, the gift that keeps on giving... insults, that is."

At least you are no longer trying to pass off your racism as truth


Vanessa Murakami You however keep throwing the word racist around as your last ditched effort to prove your point... not gonna work, love. The word has been so overused it doesn't mean anything anymore.


Lois Vanessa wrote: nothing but racism and ahistorical lies

Blah, blah, blah, blah.
You are so wrong and boring.


Lois oh and RACIST


Vanessa Murakami Lois wrote: "oh and RACIST"

And you, my dear Lois, are the embodiment of the triggered SJW who falls back on insulting people when they refuse to swallow your regurgitated muh-racism drivel.


Lois Vanessa wrote: nothing but lies and racist bullshit

Thanks for driving people to my review.
This exchange has greatly increased the likes on my review of this book.
That pushes my review to the top and means what I say will be seen more often and by more people than what you say:)
So I just wanted to take this time to thank you.
You didn't intend for your racist trolling to result in more people reading and liking my already top review for this book on this site.
I always appreciate the commitment that racists have to keeping my reviews relevant.


Lois Vanessa is a troll.
I was sent a message asking me to stop engaging and just report her comments as spam since she is hitting multiple reviews with the same copy pasted paragraph


message 30: by mark (new) - rated it 1 star

mark monday I clicked Like on this review as I was reading this book and now after finishing this garbage, and still stewing on it days later, I almost want to unclick and Like again.

This is a perfect summation of why anyone who wants to actually foster change and dialogue should despise this book.

Kudos, perfect review.


* Vanessa & Lois, it is ridiculous that I am seeing your asinine arguments on so many review threads. Can you both please just go away, forever? Neither of you are doing anything except drawing attention away from the actual topic and towards your own mutual self-absorption. Get a room already, it's embarrassing. *


message 31: by GM (new) - rated it 1 star

GM Excellent criticism of this clearly racist book!


message 32: by Dario (new) - rated it 1 star

Dario Lois, you're such a wonderful proponent of the good old Socratic debate.
Glad you got the narcissistic supply you need.


Rebecca BV wrote: "I must admit I tried to trudge through “White Fragility” but only made it to page 100 before putting DiAngelo’s anti-white mess aside."

Thanks, BV. You know, I hardly know who DiAngelo despises more - white people or black people. On the one hand, she believes whites are evil, yet all-powerful. On the other hand, she believes blacks are pure, but infantile.


Geoffrey Fong HI Rebecca, I love the review! I was recommend by my university to read this book, how to be anti-racist, and new Jim crow. This book shocked me. I could not believe how one sided and contradictory it is.

I would love to discuss the points that you made and compare notes on this issue. I believe we all want equality, but it is super hard to talk about issue without being deemed a racist even-though we have the best intention. I agree we should listen to both side of the political spectrum. It prevents us being swept up into a monolithic group thinking.

I was wondering which black intellects you listen to? I have been listening to people like Thomas Sowell, Glenn C. Loury, Chloé Valdary, candace owens, Kmele Foster, Thomas Chatterton Williams, John Wood Jr., John McWhorter, Daryl Davis, Coleman Hughes, etc to name a few.


Rebecca Geoffrey wrote: "HI Rebecca, I love the review! ...I was wondering which black intellects you listen to? "

I'd say your list is pretty close to mine! The first of these that I ever heard of was John McWhorter, whose book Losing the Race I read back in 2011 or so (it was published in 2000). It was quite a revelation. I had never before heard a pro-black argument against affirmative action; I hadn't known such a thing was possible. It was very eye-opening, to say the least. McWhorter has another book, Winning the Race, that I haven't read yet, but plan to.

Yes, by all means let's discuss some of these points!


message 36: by John (new) - rated it 2 stars

John Well-written review, Rebecca. You made some interesting points.


message 37: by Barish (new)

Barish Khandakar Privileged white rant


message 38: by Roy (new) - rated it 1 star

Roy Johnston Thank you for this review. I was having difficulty putting in to words my response to this book. Your review helps immensely.


message 39: by Gail (new) - rated it 5 stars

Gail Ryver There is no argument for an “inner white miasma”. Structural and institutional violence that favor positive outcomes for people with white skin means that the system is bigger than you, your ‘intentions’, or ‘having an argument as equals’. The point is that you cannot return the privilege that is given to you. This condition does not make you exempt from self examination. It does mean that anti racist work requires you to move past your own defensiveness.


Terrie L. Smith Love this review


Jeremey I liked your opinion of the book. I share a similar one. I wished this and many other reviews of this book we're only looked at as someone's opinion of it and not need anymore backlash on someone who disagrees with your review. Thank you for your honest opinion of it and I thank the 5* people for their honesty as well for there all our own opinions of it. No need to argue points made on goodreads


message 42: by Kristen (new) - added it

Kristen Thank you for pointing out the contradictions! I have been pomdering those for months. I just read the bool but have seen those contradictions in other forms of media prior to reading the book. I started to think maybe I was crazy or imagining them because I saw no one else pointing them out. So thank you for making me feel not crazy. While overall I liked the book because it gave me a new way to think about things there are points I disagreed with. And the contradictions...they kinda mess with my head.


message 43: by [deleted user] (new)

Hallelujah


message 44: by Mary (new)

Mary Excellent review, I agree with you 💯


message 45: by Ali (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ali Interesting review. I do have a question: why do you object so vehemently to the definition of racism being changed/expanded? Definitions change all the time based on the development of theories and accumulation of data. That’s actually how any definition has come into existence. You observe a phenomena and then work toward defining it. As you gather more information about it, that definition will certainly evolve.


message 46: by John (last edited Dec 18, 2020 09:22AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

John I can’t speak for the original poster (Rebecca), but it seems that what’s troubling is that the “antiracism” movement is essentially a deliberate attempt to bring back race as a discriminatory tool, supposedly in the name of “equity.” If history has taught us anything, passing judgement on people according to immutable traits, such as race, is messy and never ends well.

Moreover, the expanded definition of “white supremacist” for example, is now tied to individuals such as Abraham Lincoln,Thomas Jefferson, and many others, including most of the thinkers of the Enlightenment. To think that we are in some way better people than our ancestors is arrogant and ignorant, because we, too, will be judged for our many imperfections by those who are here long after we’ve gone. DiAngelo and Kendi’s changing of the definition of these loaded terms including "racism", though frought with good intentions, does not disclose the end game, which is more political than anything, and will eventually lead to less, not more, harmony among people.

Though color-blindness as a term has now been deemed “racist,” I believe we will never get beyond our current strife until we can see the humanity that is in each individual, regardless of their immutable traits.


message 47: by Wendy (new) - added it

Wendy Hull Rebecca very good review! I agree 💯


Charny85 Excellent review. I am worried about our society when seeing so many high ratings on this overtly racist book. It truly baffles the mind. I feel like I am in a dystopian novel where such insanity is being pushed and taught. Your review and others like it give me a little hope, but it is frightening how many people liked this book and defend it. It is a ghastly book.


message 49: by Dale (new) - rated it 1 star

Dale Thank you for sharing, Rebecca - hallelujah to acknowledging how complex, layered, nuanced, and built from so very many factors this is. And another thank you to “treat people like individuals” because, you know, we’re all different people. I don’t mean to speak for you, but if I may offer @Allison a response: DEFINITIONS DO NOT CHANGE ALL THE TIME. They don’t. Perceptions can and the social contract can as well, but ask any academic or generally smart person what the best reference book in the world is and you will get the same answer, the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). Sure, it gets updated but definitions don’t change. You seem to be under the Trump spell of “don’t believe what you see or hear” and “opinions are facts if you want them to be”. You are in a very dangerous place and I suggest you take on a mantra, a quote by a late politician who was widely respected and well-regarded on both sides of the aisle, Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.” Swap in “definition” for “facts “ if it helps you back away from the ledge faster. But know this, “truth”, “facts”, and standard “definitions” do exist and saying otherwise puts you on the wrong side of reality, rationality, and reason.


message 50: by David (new)

David A great review! Despite what they may claim to the contrary, the “antiracists” have completely rejected Martin Luther King’s vision of a colorblind society in favor of a race war (which they are convinced they will win). White grifters like DiAngelo are furiously raking in the cash for promoting this insanity.


« previous 1
back to top