Robin DiAngelo writes like a white supremacist, and according to her concept of white fragility, it would be racist for her to reject my accusation—according to her own silly standards, she would have to agree with me that she’s indeed a white supremacist.
When I was a boy in Ghana, I once had a massive nail pierce through my foot, and I suffered through a makeshift surgery by my mom without anaesthesia.
And that was significantly more enjoyable than reading this book. It’s astonishingly bad.
White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism is one of the bestselling books right now, and it’s one of the worst books I’ve ever read.
White Fragility was released in 2018 by sociologist and anti-racist Robin DiAngelo. The book became a best-seller immediately after it was released. However, since George Floyd’s murder, it’s become the most recommended anti-racist book in the world.
In White Fragility, Robin DiAngelo attempts to explain why white people, especially “progressive” white people, do not believe they’re racists. In the book, she defines white fragility as any rejections—including sincere rejections—by white people against accusations of racism.
She says: “None of the people whose actions I describe in this book would identify as racist. In fact, they would most likely identify as racially progressive and vehemently deny any complicity with racism. Yet all their responses illustrate white fragility and how it holds racism in place.”
For that reason, she says: “white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color.”
That’s probably the only thing from the book I agree with. She’s right—except she doesn’t know she’s referring to herself. White “progressives” cause the most daily damage to black people, and this book is a good example of that.
I read White Fragility over four days, and it damaged me in each of the four days. The book is more damaging than any massive nail to my foot.
Robin DiAngelo has managed to accomplish the difficult task of writing a book that is simultaneously anti-white and white supremacist. And yet, it’s the bestselling book on racism today.
What does it say about our culture when one of the most racist books I’ve ever read is considered by many to be the best book on racism?
We’re apparently so distracted and so deceived by false definitions of racism, we’re seemingly no longer able to discern what real racism looks like. And that’s one of the major problems with White Fragility and anti-racism ideology, it redefines racism and sin to predictably destructive and disastrous conclusions.
Anti-racism is synonymous with critical race theory, or more broadly, social justice ideology. Anti-racism is a commitment to eliminating practices and policies, sins and systems that anti-racists declare as racist.
In anti-racism ideology, racism isn’t an enticing sin, it’s an entity—or as DiAngelo references in the book—“an omnipresent phenomenon.”
And by that definition of racism, it’s not difficult to notice the religious overtones of anti-racism. Anti-racism is just pro-racism appearing as an angel of light. Anti-racism is an anti-Christ ideology that uses racism as a means to fight supposed racism. It’s an ideology that labels good as evil and evil as good. And it’s in direct opposition to Christianity.
In White Fragility, Robin DiAngelo says: “a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.”
Professing to be wise, Robin DiAngelo became a fool. Professing to be anti-racist, she became a racist. White Fragility is a racist and an anti-white book. And if we really lived in an anti-black culture like DiAngelo claims, her anti-white book wouldn’t be a bestseller.
But anti-racists like Robin DiAngelo do not hate racism, they only hate, supposedly, anti-black racism. And yet, like many “progressives”, her anti-white racism manifests in a condescending form of white supremacy. Anti-racist rhetoric is remarkably similar to white supremacist rhetoric.
Anti-racists and white supremacists agree that a person’s skin colour is the most significant thing about them. They agree that a person’s skin colour shapes who they are. And anti-racists agree with white supremacists that white people are more privileged than black people—except they say so with pity, not pride.
