Despite your attempts? You opened by describing my comments about a subject I'm far better versed in than you as stupid and now you want to pretend you've been trying to be reasonable?😅 Man, I honrstly can't wrap my head around people like you.
I didn't say any of the things you claim here. If you want to critique my writing (which again you're welcome to if you can muster the tiniest bit of civility) at least do me thae favour of reading it properly first. But if you want me to provide clarification, fine. I'll do it again more specifically.
1. You claimed that "most Anericans" grew up in segregation. I hope I don't have to go into too much detail about why this isnn't true. You are talking for yourself. Which is fine. Just don't generalise to everybody else. Too many people are afraid to speak for themselves and hide behind their "group". Again, this is what I think DiAngelo is doing in her book and in the hours of her talks I've watched. She is racist. So she derives a philosophy that claims all white people are racist. All this does is divide and confuse people.
2. You claimed many whites see black people as some kind of uncontacted tribe. I don't know how you're defining "many" here. Apparently by the white people in your personal circle. Maybe, especially if you grew up during segregation, you know a lot of racist people. I think it would be near impossible to grow up during the 50s and 60s and not be racist to a significant degree. But to act as if this is still normal today ignores the huge strides that have been made. In fact, the toxicity of the current racial dialogue is taking us backwards in terms of racial relations. I can provide data to confirm this if the evidence of your eyes isn't enough. I think DiAngelo is a driver of that divisiveness.
3. You used the typical rhetorical hyperbole of "change won't happen unless everybody cares". I already addressed the main issue with this and you seem to have agreed, but let me point out how condescending it is for you to be telling me what "needs to happen" before change occurs as if you've thought more deeply about it or have more "skin in the game" so to speak. Again, imagine if I was lecturing a woman about, say, abortion rights in this way. This arrogance is a unique feature of the progressives neoracists who rave about DiAngelo's work. They're so God damn certain of themselves, regardless of who they're talking to.
4. I use the term "neoracist" because this is absolutely a new, socially accepted form of racism. It's racism disguised as a desire to listen to black people but, as you so ably demonstrated here, our voices are only considered worth listening to when we say the things you think we "should" be saying. There's not an ounce of genuine huility, it's just a new way of telling the uppity black folk to pipe down. As soon as a black person says something you don't like all of that "willingnessto listen" evaporates. DiAngelo is very guilty of this too. Note her refusal to engage with Ayaan Hirsh Ali, even though their debate would have raised over $20,000 that would have gone towards teaching gifted black children in Kenya. DiAngelo would rather avoid the risk of being proven wrong and deny those children that money, than speak to a high profile, well-educated black writer who disagrees with her.
I think I've been specific enough here. First and foremost, recognise that I'm a human being. If you come at me with a shitty attitude, don't starrt complaining because I match your energy. I'm painstakingly polite with people here. I devote way more time than most writers to engaging with my readers. Even the rude ones. I want to have conversations with people. But if you begin by being dismissive and arrogant with a stranger, don't be surprised when you aren't treated politely.
