Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To be fair to Adder, he didn't call Taibbi a racist. He said it was a racist piece. I mischaracterized that.
Even so, I said the same thing that Sebby said. Adder seems to say that something if racist if you think it doesn't help the cause of antiracism. That's one way to define the term, but does it advance any conversation? I personally think there's some latent racism in the way sports broadcaster describe what they see. There is pretty strong empirical evidence that light skinned players are likelier to be described as smart, and dark skinned players are likelier to be defined as athletic. The broadcasters recapitulate stereotypes in a way that strengthens and passes them on. So is a promo spot for an upcoming broadcast "racist"? In Adder's sense, yes, because it promotes something that is racist and doesn't help the cause of antiracism. But does it advance any kind of useful conversation to point that out in that way? It's important to capture the ways that racism is systematic and hegemonic and pervasive, but the language that we need to talk about the broad picture doesn't particularly help clarify specific stories about individuals.
|
I don't think its productive to dismiss a piece as racist and offer no credible explanation for doing so other than that it argued with something that was antiracist. It's just reflexive labeling. Explain why the piece is racist. Or better yet, explain where it fails. I actually explained where I thought Taibbi failed in certain of his assessments of DiAngelo. But Adder didn't want that. He wanted to shout, "Racist!"
I see the same subtle racism you've noted in various forms of media every day. I think we all do. But when one does see it, one ought to flag it as you have. Explain the facts as you did. And if someone should assert that it is not racism in response, make your argument for why it is, rather than saying that disagreement with you is itself racism.
This is what renders the assertion that to argue something is not racist is proof of fragility so embarrassing. It's a dodge of the worst kind. All discussion why a thing may not in fact be racist is precluded. For a person to fail to recognize this is mere rhetorical gamesmanship telecasts either a frightening immaturity or bad faith.
I think because the concept of white fragility can be so easily abused in this manner, a lot of white people refuse to engage it. It's an incredibly effective debate cudgel. To not accept it 100% is to to find oneself accused of trafficking in it. I don't think DiAngelo intended that perverse result.
