5 ms·

Everyone is fragile. There is no "master race" which is immune to negative emotions.

dragonwriter 6y ago
“White fragility” (the concept, not the book, which I have no opinion about and don't expect a piece leading with the false social generalizations that are straight out of right-wing propaganda that this does to provide any illumination that would help with that) isn't about special fragility in Whites, it's about the special consequences of normal human fragility has in a particular privileged elite when confronted with a challenge to that privilege, and moreover to the mythology that provides a veneer that allows them to see the world in which that privilege exists as just. In contexts other than the modern USA, there are other dominant elites which no doubt would exhibit the same effects when challenged; there's nothing innately White about White fragility, it's only circumstantially White.
- pnako 6y ago
  In fact, her own definition is (from Wikipedia): >White Fragility is a state in which even a minimal challenge to the white position becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves including: argumentation, invalidation, silence, withdrawal and claims of being attacked and misunderstood. You could replace the world white by any other word. And you can replace the list of defensive moves by the equivalent statement : "refusal to unconditionally comply", since it's the only option left. I would venture a guess that this covers about 75% of human interactions, and 99% of interactions when the discussion is about challenging someone's interests or position.
- rbecker 6y ago
  > In contexts other than the modern USA, there are other dominant elites which no doubt would exhibit the same effects when challenged; there's nothing innately White about White fragility, it's only circumstantially White. However, I hardly ever hear about other dominant elites being challenged this way (with the occasional exception when Palestine is brought up), so your hypothetical phrasing is largely accurate, as far as I'm aware.

“White fragility” (the concept, not the book, which I have no opinion about and don't expect a piece leading with the false social generalizations that are straight out of right-wing propaganda that this does to provide any illumination that would help with that) isn't about special fragility in Whites, it's about the special consequences of normal human fragility has in a particular privileged elite when confronted with a challenge to that privilege, and moreover to the mythology that provides a veneer that allows them to see the world in which that privilege exists as just. In contexts other than the modern USA, there are other dominant elites which no doubt would exhibit the same effects when challenged; there's nothing innately White about White fragility, it's only circumstantially White.

pnako 6y ago
In fact, her own definition is (from Wikipedia): >White Fragility is a state in which even a minimal challenge to the white position becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves including: argumentation, invalidation, silence, withdrawal and claims of being attacked and misunderstood. You could replace the world white by any other word. And you can replace the list of defensive moves by the equivalent statement : "refusal to unconditionally comply", since it's the only option left. I would venture a guess that this covers about 75% of human interactions, and 99% of interactions when the discussion is about challenging someone's interests or position.
rbecker 6y ago
> In contexts other than the modern USA, there are other dominant elites which no doubt would exhibit the same effects when challenged; there's nothing innately White about White fragility, it's only circumstantially White. However, I hardly ever hear about other dominant elites being challenged this way (with the occasional exception when Palestine is brought up), so your hypothetical phrasing is largely accurate, as far as I'm aware.