Sometimes writers respond with “did you read what I wrote?” to indicate the other person misinterpreted what they read. In this particular case it seems J genuinely didn’t read it at all. He pasted in a pretty elaborate essay about the current social trends of racism against white people. That was his main goal in responding. (It was…
Sometimes writers respond with “did you read what I wrote?” to indicate the other person misinterpreted what they read. In this particular case it seems J genuinely didn’t read it at all. He pasted in a pretty elaborate essay about the current social trends of racism against white people. That was his main goal in responding. (It was a pretty good essay, actually.)
But here’s my question. I’m an old white guy who thought I was handling racial issues pretty well in life by treating everyone kindly. It’s only recently occurred to me that someone in a public interaction might be expressing some upfront animosity toward me based on race. Since black people have experienced this frequently, I can’t get too excited about it. I just continue being nice, which works approximately 100% of the time.
So, even though the big picture is that we can’t fight racism with racism, J comes across to me as expressing a bit of white fragility. What is the balanced response to that?
"So, even though the big picture is that we can’t fight racism with racism, J comes across to me as expressing a bit of white fragility. "
Oh absolutely. I dislike the term "white fragility", but fragility for sure.
I don't think a balanced response is possible when you're responding to somebody's *fears* about what you said instead of what you *actually said*. A conversation can only happen if both parties are listening to each other. Otherwise it's just two people talking past each other.
I'd completely understand J's defensiveness if I'd written something about how all white people are evil or racist or whatever garbage people are churning out. I don't think it's fragile to object to being generalised in this way. But if he's going to lie about having read something instead of bothering to read it, there's not a lot I can do.
Sometimes writers respond with “did you read what I wrote?” to indicate the other person misinterpreted what they read. In this particular case it seems J genuinely didn’t read it at all. He pasted in a pretty elaborate essay about the current social trends of racism against white people. That was his main goal in responding. (It was a pretty good essay, actually.)
But here’s my question. I’m an old white guy who thought I was handling racial issues pretty well in life by treating everyone kindly. It’s only recently occurred to me that someone in a public interaction might be expressing some upfront animosity toward me based on race. Since black people have experienced this frequently, I can’t get too excited about it. I just continue being nice, which works approximately 100% of the time.
So, even though the big picture is that we can’t fight racism with racism, J comes across to me as expressing a bit of white fragility. What is the balanced response to that?
"So, even though the big picture is that we can’t fight racism with racism, J comes across to me as expressing a bit of white fragility. "
Oh absolutely. I dislike the term "white fragility", but fragility for sure.
I don't think a balanced response is possible when you're responding to somebody's *fears* about what you said instead of what you *actually said*. A conversation can only happen if both parties are listening to each other. Otherwise it's just two people talking past each other.
I'd completely understand J's defensiveness if I'd written something about how all white people are evil or racist or whatever garbage people are churning out. I don't think it's fragile to object to being generalised in this way. But if he's going to lie about having read something instead of bothering to read it, there's not a lot I can do.