fbpx
Skip to content

The Myth of “White Fragility”

Robin DiAngelo’s book, White Fragility, is immensely popular right now. Specifically, it is popular with two groups: People who aren’t white, but who hate white people, and people who are white, and who hate themselves.

The book itself is less a thesis and more a screed, a manual for what could almost be described as a cult belief system centered around hatred of white people. Its details are unimportant. The concept it seeks to promulgate, however, is extremely important.

Most people will never read the book. What matters is only that the term, “white fragility” has entered the common argot. Attaching “white” to “fragility” is immeasurably important to what Robin DiAngelo is trying to do. It sets up a tautology, a piece of circular logic, that insulates those who hate white people from all criticism — while mischaracterizing any defense of white people (mounted by those people themselves, or by external observers of this dialogue) as “evidence” of DiAngelo’s assertion.

If this type of illogic sounds familiar to you, that’s because it has been used before, most notably by conspiracy theorists. It works like this: When you seek evidence of a conspiracy, the very lack of evidence is itself evidence that the conspiracy is working. The circle of illogic thus protects itself, insulating it from any need to provide a link to reality.

The same technique is often used by frauds in various fields of endeavor. If a famous, deluded martial artist falsely claims he served in the CIA, but his military DD214 paperwork says otherwise, this is evidence that he must have been a super-secret black-bag operator, because the government must have tampered with his paperwork. Right? The lack of evidence not only becomes “evidence,” but is a shield behind which he may continue to hide, keeping him safe from any need to prove his claims.

So it is with white fragility. All that is necessary for DiAngelo’s assertion to succeed is that you embrace the myth of white original sin: White people are the intergalactic oppressors of all who are not white. They benefit from invisible, unprovable “privilege,” a notion that can be asserted without evidence. All accomplishments of white people are thus suspect, presumed to be unfair benefits reaped from an unspecified, undefined “system” that unfairly benefits those white people.

When white people are accused of these crimes — crimes they have not committed, mind you — and when they are told they are biased, prejudiced, or racist, they may only accept this accusation and plead guilty to it. They may not, under any circumstances, protest that they have been unfairly accused or that they are not, in fact, racist (all white people are always racist, even if only subconsciously or implicitly, you see).

If they do protest, this is evidence that they are “fragile.” They are uncomfortable with their guilt, so any refusal on their part to plead guilty to DiAngelo’s accusations is proof that they’re fragile (and also proof that they’re guilty). DiAngelo and her followers place a premium on making white people “uncomfortable” (mostly by unfairly accusing them of things they have not done.) The resulting discomfort caused by these accusations becomes proof of guilt.

It’s a very tidy system. At no time in DiAngelo’s universe can a white person actually be innocent of these cultural, historical, systemic crimes. That premise is not accepted — or rather, DiAngelo’s premises are always taken as proven, as given, and as the starting point from which the conversation progresses. By “conversation,” we of course mean accusations and recriminations. No other dialogue is possible. When the starting point is, “You are guilty, so you must confess your crimes,” no further discussion may ensue.

To further protect DiAngelo’s tautology, her fellow travelers have successfully redefined the dictionary definition of “racism.” I’m old enough to remember when accusing all people of a specific race of being guilty of inherited crimes — and telling them that they are defensive and “fragile” if they disagree — was itself an act of racism. Now, DiAngelo and all prejudiced race-baiters like her have exempted themselves from the dictionary definition.

Per their racial Newspeak, only whites can be “racist.” The term has thus lost all meaning — except to the self-hating whites (and the legions of their resentful accusers) who have made DiAngelo’s book a bestseller.

What we are witnessing is nothing more or less than the willing cuckoldry of an entire demographic of people — people who, because of their skin color, are willing to subordinate themselves to their accusers. It is a horrifyingly cruel way to treat people because it relies on their well-meaning good natures to treat them unfairly.

Only people desperate not to be seen as racists, and zealous for the approval of their accusers, would allow themselves to be libeled this way. Only people wetting themselves in fear over being slandered as racists would allow themselves to become so many “race cucks”  kneeling and begging for forgiveness.

No race, no demographic, is “fragile.” No “system” in the United States unfairly advantages whites over blacks. No crime committed by people long dead against victims who are no longer alive need be litigated in the present time — and no one, of any skin color, bears guilt for it. These are facts. They are not in dispute.

They remain facts no matter what Robin DiAngelo and her cult of supporters have to say about them.

1 thought on “The Myth of “White Fragility””

  1. Reminds me of 20 years ago when absolutely everything was “proof” of global warming. Even an ice age was “warming” if you watched a particularly shitty Dennis Quaid movie.

Leave a Reply