This is exactly what I am talking about and people like you are the reason that Plantation Field no longer exist. Maybe if you actually watch it you can educate yourself.
3 Likes
Naw, man. No way. Youâre wrong on this point.
3 Likes
You clearly havenât been following this thread very closely, or you would not have made that statement.
6 Likes
Oh Maude, it isnât that we are not educated on these issues, we just disagree with you.
There are plenty of goodhearted people on this thread(I donât count myself among those) who are worried because they sense a cultural shift has occurred over say the past 12-18 months and see eventing as a sport maybe falling behind. And we do lose sponsers, and we do lose events. But if we are going to sally forth in search of new ones this foolishness will drag us down.
That is the sense of unease that goodhearted people(did I mention that I donât count myself among them) have about this right now.
11 Likes
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opinion/nyt-1619-project-criticisms.html?searchResultPosition=2
Wow, that is an extremely powerful critique of the 1619 project. I hope it is the death knell for what seems like a very misguided and dishonest rewriting of history.
8 Likes
Oh, please. Itâs not âmisguidedâ or âdishonestâ - itâs another point of view. Maybe a view from folks who were not the winners.
If one is so afraid to consider how history might look from the underside, perhaps thatâs an issue. I donât see whatâs so threatening about hearing another version.
12 Likes
Did you read the critique, which cites concerns raised by many renowned historians?
The problem is not that people are âthreatenedâ about âanother versionâ; the problem is that the 1619 account is riddled with factual errors.
9 Likes
Disclaimer - this is not my best work. I have to renew my APA membership in order to get to some articles I was going to use and that has not been confirmed yet. Also, I was in a time and space constraint. Finally, while I found the book White Fragility on Google books, it only includes up to the authorâs note and $10 from Amazon is not in my book budget
While the move towards equality and inclusion in the United States has been in process for over a century, in recent years there seems to have been a shift backward. This shift is due in part to some new phrases and how they are used. In order to understand how these phrases a hurting the move towards true equality and inclusion, it is necessary to understand some best practices for creating and sustaining change. It is important to compare these to the phrases âwhite fragilityâ and âwhite privilegeâ and how they are used.
B.F. Skinner introduced operant conditioning to the world. They fall into four quadrants â positive punishment, positive reinforcement, negative punishment, negative reinforcement. Positive punishment is the positive act of giving punishment to eliminate an action (using a crop so a horse that is balking will stop balking). Positive reinforcement is giving something to encourage behavior (treats for a horse being good). Negative punishment is taking something away to eliminate a behavior (removing a horse from his friends because heâs paying attention to them instead of you). Negative reinforcement is the act of taking away something to encourage the desired behavior (no longer hitting the horse with the stick because he stops balking). There has been a number of studies on these quadrants, along with the overall idea of punishment versus reinforcement in making permanent behavior changes. The research indicates that while punishment can have a more immediate effect, reinforcement has a lasting effect and is key to behavior changes.
In chapter 16 of his book âWin Friends and Influence Peopleâ by Dale Carnegie, he discusses the art of avoiding arguments. He starts with a story of proving to another patron at a banquet, who was telling a story to the table, that he is correct about the origin of a quote and other patron is incorrect. A friend and mentor corrected Carnegie later, going on to explain that Carnegie had put the other patron in an embarrassing situation. The other patron was not looking for correction, he was spinning at tale for entertainment. Carnegie goes on to explain that even in winning an argument, you lose because you have caused damage to the other personâs pride and he will resent your triumph. He goes on to outline how to change other peopleâs minds â listen first, look for areas of agreement, be honest, promise to think over your opponentsâ ideas and study them carefully, thank opponents sincerely for their interest, postpone action to give both sides time to think through the problem.
Benjamin Dattner, owner of a consulting firm for businesses with a doctorate in Industrialand Organizational Psychology, discusses giving and receiving feedback with the Harvard Business Review. In the interview, he discussed how to have feedback received as well as possible. Dattner mentioned in order to have feedback received well one must believe in that feedback. This is true both when the individual giving the feedback is looking to elevate the receiver and when the individual giving feedback feels the receiver is not worth elevating (at this time or ever). One must also at times reflect and readdress feedback. If the receiver is not initiating change or takes the feedback in a highly negative light, the person giving feedback should reflect on what they could have done better.
The dictionary term for âfragilityâ is âeasily broken or destroyedâ and âconstitutionally delicateâÂ. Being fragile is seen as a negative trait to most people. Robin DiAngelo explains in the authorâs note of her book âWhite Fragility: Why Itâs So Hard for White People to Talk About Racismâ, she discusses how she was not sure why many white people became so defensive when she approached them to discuss racism. Her conclusion was a term she coined called âWhite FragilityâÂ. DiAngelo does not indicate anywhere in this section where she asked the participants why they had the reactions they did. The use of a word that is given as a negative to the recipient is closer to an attempt at using positive punishment to in elicit a change. DiAngelo also does not take into account at least some concepts related to influencing people. She did not ask participants why they felt the way they did, which did not allow her a chance to listen. It also did not give her an opportunity to promise to think over their ideas and study them carefully or thank them for their interest. DiAngelo could taken some of Dattnerâs advice prior to coming up with her conclusions and reflect on if it is the participants lack of willingness or understanding causing the reaction or her approach to the topic. Instead she authored a book around a buzzword she created and contributed to increasing the divide rather than closing it.
The term âwhite privilegeâ is often used as a way to describe societal privilege that benefits white people. Websterâs Dictionary defines privilege as âa right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favorâÂ. While the concept of white privilege in an academic/research setting has itâs merits, it falls short in a practical setting. Most notably, the term is often used in a dismissive manner by the general population that uses them. The general population seems to confuse privilege as a statistical study in academia with the individual experience. The use does not take into account Carnegieâs suggestion to listen and look for areas of agreement. While statistically speaking, the white population of the United States may have an advantage, the individual may not. By dismissing the individualâs response that they worked hard or their family/ancestorsâ tribulation, the speaker is in essence dismissing the individual. The speaker is doing to the individual what they are asking the individual to stop doing to another group. In this case, the speaker should take Dattnerâs suggestion into account and reassess how they are delivering the message if the message is not received.
While the move toward true equality is a noble and necessary move, it may be worthwhile to take a pause to reassess and reflect on strategy.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fragility
https://www.google.com/books/editionâŠsec=frontcover
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/bâŠent-here-s-why
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/waâŠ-conditioning/
https://www.google.com/books/editionâŠsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/editionâŠsec=frontcover
https://hbr.org/podcast/2019/02/critical-feedback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege
1 Like
Disclaimer - this is not my best work. I have to renew my APA membership in order to get to some articles I was going to use and that has not been confirmed yet. Also, I was in a time and space constraint. Finally, while I found the book White Fragility on Google books, it only includes up to the authorâs note and $10 from Amazon is not in my book budget
(also, I apologize if this posts twice, I posted initially with links and it was unapproved)
While the move towards equality and inclusion in the United States has been in process for over a century, in recent years there seems to have been a shift backward. This shift is due in part to some new phrases and how they are used. In order to understand how these phrases a hurting the move towards true equality and inclusion, it is necessary to understand some best practices for creating and sustaining change. It is important to compare these to the phrases âwhite fragilityâ and âwhite privilegeâ and how they are used.
B.F. Skinner introduced operant conditioning to the world. They fall into four quadrants â positive punishment, positive reinforcement, negative punishment, negative reinforcement. Positive punishment is the positive act of giving punishment to eliminate an action (using a crop so a horse that is balking will stop balking). Positive reinforcement is giving something to encourage behavior (treats for a horse being good). Negative punishment is taking something away to eliminate a behavior (removing a horse from his friends because heâs paying attention to them instead of you). Negative reinforcement is the act of taking away something to encourage the desired behavior (no longer hitting the horse with the stick because he stops balking). There has been a number of studies on these quadrants, along with the overall idea of punishment versus reinforcement in making permanent behavior changes. The research indicates that while punishment can have a more immediate effect, reinforcement has a lasting effect and is key to behavior changes.
In chapter 16 of his book âWin Friends and Influence Peopleâ by Dale Carnegie, he discusses the art of avoiding arguments. He starts with a story of proving to another patron at a banquet, who was telling a story to the table, that he is correct about the origin of a quote and other patron is incorrect. A friend and mentor corrected Carnegie later, going on to explain that Carnegie had put the other patron in an embarrassing situation. The other patron was not looking for correction, he was spinning at tale for entertainment. Carnegie goes on to explain that even in winning an argument, you lose because you have caused damage to the other personâs pride and he will resent your triumph. He goes on to outline how to change other peopleâs minds â listen first, look for areas of agreement, be honest, promise to think over your opponentsâ ideas and study them carefully, thank opponents sincerely for their interest, postpone action to give both sides time to think through the problem.
Benjamin Dattner, owner of a consulting firm for businesses with a doctorate in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, discusses giving and receiving feedback with the Harvard Business Review. In the interview, he discussed how to have feedback received as well as possible. Dattner mentioned in order to have feedback received well one must believe in that feedback. This is true both when the individual giving the feedback is looking to elevate the receiver and when the individual giving feedback feels the receiver is not worth elevating (at this time or ever). One must also at times reflect and readdress feedback. If the receiver is not initiating change or takes the feedback in a highly negative light, the person giving feedback should reflect on what they could have done better.
The dictionary term for âfragilityâ is âeasily broken or destroyedâ and âconstitutionally delicateâÂ. Being fragile is seen as a negative trait to most people. Robin DiAngelo explains in the authorâs note of her book âWhite Fragility: Why Itâs So Hard for White People to Talk About Racismâ, she discusses how she was not sure why many white people became so defensive when she approached them to discuss racism. Her conclusion was a term she coined called âWhite FragilityâÂ. DiAngelo does not indicate anywhere in this section where she asked the participants why they had the reactions they did. The use of a word that is given as a negative to the recipient is closer to an attempt at using positive punishment to in elicit a change. DiAngelo also does not take into account at least some concepts related to influencing people. She did not ask participants why they felt the way they did, which did not allow her a chance to listen. It also did not give her an opportunity to promise to think over their ideas and study them carefully or thank them for their interest. DiAngelo could taken some of Dattnerâs advice prior to coming up with her conclusions and reflect on if it is the participants lack of willingness or understanding causing the reaction or her approach to the topic. Instead she authored a book around a buzzword she created and contributed to increasing the divide rather than closing it.
The term âwhite privilegeâ is often used as a way to describe societal privilege that benefits white people. Websterâs Dictionary defines privilege as âa right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favorâÂ. While the concept of white privilege in an academic/research setting has itâs merits, it falls short in a practical setting. Most notably, the term is often used in a dismissive manner by the general population that uses them. The general population seems to confuse privilege as a statistical study in academia with the individual experience. The use does not take into account Carnegieâs suggestion to listen and look for areas of agreement. While statistically speaking, the white population of the United States may have an advantage, the individual may not. By dismissing the individualâs response that they worked hard or their family/ancestorsâ tribulation, the speaker is in essence dismissing the individual. The speaker is doing to the individual what they are asking the individual to stop doing to another group. In this case, the speaker should take Dattnerâs suggestion into account and reassess how they are delivering the message if the message is not received.
While the move toward true equality is a noble and necessary move, it may be worthwhile to take a pause to reassess and reflect on strategy.
8 Likes
Some of my personal experience (again, time and space constraints)
My personal experiences with racial issues are like many, complex. I did not have the best home life but I did learn through many sources to treat others as I would want to be treated â that is with kindness and understanding.
Among other things, growing up it was difficult for me to be proud of my family history, of the struggles we overcame because as soon as I mentioned my Polish side, the âdumb Pollackâ jokes started. As soon as I mentioned my Irish side the âdrunk, potato eating Irishâ jokes started. I learned to be ashamed, to hide my history.
By the time I became an adult, it because a matter of course to just not talk about certain things, including my rough childhood and my family history.
I have encountered many people in my adult life that make assumptions about me according to my looks, it is assumed I lived some Idyllic childhood â white picket fence, 1.5 siblings, dog, you know, happy, middle class.
While the above is not true, I understand the psychology of initial judgement.
Everyone has an initial impression and that does not bother. What does bother me is people taking that initial impression as final fact. That impression has been used to belittle and dismiss me as just âwhite womanâÂ. As if we are a hive mind. This is in contradiction to the insistence of those same people that I stop treating various minority groups as a hive mind, but as each a person. This insistence from these same people assumes that I do not already do that.
Now, back to my family history â I have literally been told by these same people that preach from the pulpit of White Privilege and White Fragility that my family history does not matter. That my great-grandfather is literally only here because of the oppression that led to the Potato Famine in Ireland. My mother is only here due to escaping the Naziâs after her mother was caught while working for resistance in Poland. Being first generation natural born citizen on my motherâs side and 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] on my fatherâs doesnât matter. My âwhitenessâ makes me automatically guilty of what, I donât know.
The thing about the concept of âwhite privilegeâ is that it is only good in a research topic. When someone feels it is right to walk up to anybody and tell them, especially without knowing them, that their life is easy because of the color of their skin is not, in my opinion, any less racists than many of the other concepts and issues they rail against. To tell someone building his business, working 14 hour days, that heâs living life âon the easy buttonâ is insulting, tone deaf, and dismissive. These are not ways to gain an ally.
Are you going to tell my next door neighbor âat least you arenât black â imagine if you were!â My next door neighbor who has been on SSI the 11 years that I have known him, can barely make rent at times, is unable to have a regular job due to his issues but mows lawns in the neighborhood for money and is one of the most helpful people in the neighborhood. Is not well educated due to his circumstances and only missed being evicted recently because his social worker got involved â his landlord wanted to evict him instead of doing necessary repairs. But hey, at least heâs not black, right? Go tell him how lucky he is â he can share it with his black friends that are over all the time.
It irritates me for another reason as well. It becomes a convenient excuse. Look at George Zimmerman. He conveniently became the face of âevil white menâ instead of just being a bad guy. His mother is from Peru, technically heâs Latino but with a last name like Zimmerman, the media turned him into âevil white manâ and didnât look any further. Instead of the topic being âGeorge did a bad thingâ it became âwhite man, at it againâÂ.
There is a personal story of a black woman interviewing for a child care position. The owner of the daycare is white. The woman was bombing the interview â would you hit a child, yes, sometimes they need it. You realize I could lose my license, right? Well, sometimes a kid needs it â but you wonât hire me anyway because Iâm black. The woman who owns the daycare is married to a black, has children with him, is clearly not opposed to someone due to their skin color. But it is an easy excuse. Instead of reflecting on why sheâs not getting the job, she will brush it off as âracismâÂ. It is a devolution in the movement towards true equality.
I can point out other stories but I am attempting to keep these posts relatively short.
Even the desire to show people their âprivilegeâ astounds me. Sometimes I reflect back on a conversation I had with a former boss. He liked to have political discussions with me and would listen to what I said, probably in part due to my willingness to listen to him. We got on the subject of sexism â we work in a male dominated field and were discussing how it can be difficult for women. This job is part time and he is a teacher full time. He made a comment about often being the only man in the room in his school and how that felt, especially when some women start talking. I agreed that it must be difficult at times to be the odd one out and they shouldnât make him feel that way.
Nowhere did I think â oh yeah, this is a great time to tell him about male privilege and how his life is overall just so much easier than mine or another womanâs! Why would I do that? I would I not validate his trials and tribulations? Why would I downplay or dismiss them? Thatâs just mean.
Overall, I just donât get it. Why do you think being mean and insulting people is how to win people to your side? It just doesnât make any sense to me. Donât get me wrong, I can have a SHARP tongue when I want â but I donât expect people to like me afterward (friendly banter aside).
17 Likes
@Ajierene thank you so much for typing that out. Everything you posted should be the basis of the dialogue.
The point should never be to be right. It should be to educate and have an open dialogue.
I have found this to be effective when fighting for LGBTQ rights LONG before it was popular. Even on CoTH. Well, CoTH wasnât a thing when I started but thatâs besides the point.
I will also say again, people arenât pissed because of âwhite fragilityâ or whatever nonsense. People are pissed because we acknowledge that âPlantation Fieldsâ gives people pause and yet we are still condemned for being mad an event was cancelled. The main point is, we donât need to lose an event over it. Like it or not the way EN handled it was wrong. Per the emails Leslie has since deleted, she had BM on her side. EN then managed to piss everyone off.
12 Likes
I clearly have a life outside of the COTH Forums and donât have time to read everything. Now I remember why I donât go on COTH anymore. Iâd rather talk in person in a one on one conversation
1 Like
Ummm that poster has agreed with you. But go on explaining how you have better things to do than admit your wrong.
3 Likes
Iâd say that Maude and I have a very narrow overlapping of opinion.
But then, sheâs too busy to be concerned with that, so it really doesnât matter.
2 Likes
@Ajierene Iâm sorry but I have to say that itâs abundantly clear that you donât actually understand the term âwhite privilegeâÂ⊠or âmale privilegeâ either for that matter.
âMale privilegeâ does not mean that because youâre a male your life is automatically easier than a womanâs. âMale privilegeâ just means that youâve never experienced sexism/ discrimination/ adversity due to your sex and that you benefit from certain âadvantagesâ that women do not because of their sex. It means men are less likely to be denied a job due to sexism. It means men are less likely to be raped. It means they are less likely to feel afraid walking home alone at night. It means that men are less likely to be seen as a âbitchâ because theyâre assertive. It does NOT mean that âlife is overall so much easier than any womanâsâ or âon the easy settingâ as you put it.
Look at Darrel Hammond for example (using him since I just watched the documentary). If you donât know who he is heâs a comedian that was on SNL and did the Bill Clinton impersonations. Heâs a straight white male that grew up in the middle class but the documentary goes into how he suffered horrific child abuse and the suffered from alcoholism/ drug abuse in adulthood. The guy has clearly had a rough life. The difference is, his life wasnât rough because of his sex, not that his life wasnât rough⊠because obviously it really was. Its not about who has a âharderâ or âeasierâ life but about certain specific situations.
Similarly, âwhite privilegeâ does not mean your life is easier because your white. That might be what you think it means but thats not what the concept means at all. White privilege just means you have the âprivilegeâ or not experiencing hardship/ adversity/ discrimination DUE to your skin color. It doesnât mean that you wonât experience those things at all. I personally shared some details about my own childhood growing up in the horse world and how it was extremely difficult for me. I was in an abusive âworking studentâ situation and had to work my a** off 7 days a week just to be able to ride. But even I can say that I benefited from white privilege because things were hard but never hard because of my skin color and that IS a privilege in this country whether we like it or not. I may not have ever had a ride to the barn, but I lived in an area that was close enough for me to walk or bike to the barn. And when I did walk or bike to the barn, I didnât have to worry about getting stopped by the police or shot for wearing a hoody and looking âsuspiciousâÂ. That is the privilege. It should not be, but it is. And I can recognize that without feeling like it takes away from my hardships because itâs not about who has it âharderâ or âeasierâÂ.
Now on âwhite fragilityâÂ, look, Iâm not going to have a full discussion with you about a book you havenât read. Iâll just say that it seems that your dislike of the phrase seems to be centered around how it makes you feel and not about the validity of the concept itself. The author is a white lady so obviously sheâs not writing about white fragility as a thing she just observed in her participants but also as something she herself experienced as a white person. Itâs not an attack meant to divide, but itâs an observation thatâs meant to make us reflect on ourselves. White fragility is what makes a rich white landowner go âIâm not racist, get off my lawn!â Instead of having a conversation about how hurtful a name, like plantation, can be without getting angry and flipping the monopoly board. OR itâs what makes someone on COTH feel compelled to write 2 Facebookesque rants on a topics they donât fully understand. And yes, thatâs all they were. Thereâs nothing âacademicâ about writing your thoughts on a book you havenât read unless weâre using 8th grade remedial English class standards. Mixing quotes into a bunch of BS doesnât make it not BS.
Ive already acknowleged that I know Iâm not changing your mind. I also just know that we have a lot of lurkers and that these COTH threads stick around forever. I also know how poorly this one is going to age. I hope to whatever lurkers are reading this, whether itâs now or in 20 years, youâll see that we donât (or didnât) all have such a poor attitude about these issues.
One more thing⊠to those of you who keep saying that Iâm not âlistening to your sideâÂ, I CAME from your side. I grew up white and in Chester county. If you would have told me about âwhite privilegeâ ten years ago I 100% would have told you to get lost. Donât tell me I donât understand your views. I grew up with those views. We grow and we learn and we hope to become a better version of ourselves.
15 Likes
So, to get back more on topic and hopefully not get the thread closed because it is once again becoming more of a current events thread and a horse threadâŠ
Has EN posted anything else on this topic or is it just swept under the rug?
7 Likes
I understand in an attempt for brevity, I may not have made the story of my friend clear as possible, so I will reiterate. In his full time job, he is discrimminated against at times because he is male. He is made to feel not welcome in the break room because he is male. He has missed opportunities because he is male.
As I stated before, the concept of privilege may be suitable in a research setting but in practicality it is not. People do miss opportunities due to status. A friend was passed over for a government contract due to his status as white male and the regulation that a certain amount of government contracts go to minorities. I had to go to college on interest bearing loans due to my status as white. There are not government grants for âwhite poor but not poor enough with decent but not great gradesâ. This is in contrast to a classmate in college who was in a better socioeconomic situation, had parents willing to pay for college but did not pay for college because she had government grants due to her status as black. My issue with this is not that she used the grant but that the money from the government, in my opinion, would have been better served going to someone who was in a financial situation where they needed the money. It is one of the issues I have with this - using a concept that ASSumes certain advantages to a group of people so bypassing them for a group that fits the same criteria but with one addition does a disservice. I do not like anyone being at a disadvantage like that.
Also, in practicality, we are not statistics. Do you walk up to someone who broke their leg and say, âbut it isnât amputated. Iâm not saying your life is easy, Iâm just saying you donât suffer issues inherent with an amputated leg.â It just seems hurtful to dissmiss someoneâs pain like that. It is fine if it doesnât bother you, but we are all unique and special people and should be treated as such. Hence, when someone says, âthose words make me feel bad, dismissed and marginalized.â The speaker should apologize and not use those words if they care about the listenerâs feelings and they should care about the listenerâs feelings, especially if they are working towards winning an ally.
This ties into other issues, though. The poor appalacians are technically not in their situation because of their skine tone but the fact remains they are decendents of poor farmers, majority being Ulster Scots. The Quakers and much of the colonists in the 1700âs considered Scottish and Irish to be lesser than them and they escaped the persecution into the Appalacian territory. Today, this region is still in great poverty. This region is never talked about though, and while there is federal money designated to help them, they are one of countless communities in the United States that do not have the ear and hence support of the general population, which often is what drives politics and where the money goes.
Wait, isnât this what your argument is about the word âplantationâ? While you acknowledge there is more than one definition of the word, isnât your argument that a particular definition is more common and makes people FEEL bad and hence we should not use it? If one personâs feelings are more valid than the ability to use a word, are not another personâs feelings more valid than using a different word? What I am currently inferring is the opinion that one personâs feelings are MORE valid than someone elseâs. This is not, in my opinion, a step in the direction of true equality.
But you didnât âcome from my sideâ. That we are both classed as âwhiteâ, we are not the same and did not necessarily have the same personal experiences and did not come from the same âsideâ.
15 Likes
@Equkelly I get the impression that you think that if you could just explain this sufficiently and if we would all read White Fragility, then we would understand and agree. This is a misconception. It is entirely possible to completely understand what youâre saying, to read White Fragility and understand what the author is saying, and still disagree, still reach the conclusion that it is an invalid representation of reality.
White Fragility is not a scholarly work. It is basically an opinion piece and very much akin in spirit to the old âHave you stopped beating your wife yet?â It is based on a false premise (yes, thatâs my opinion) and constructed in such a way that itâs impossible to have an honest discussion about the authorâs conclusions, because every time someone raises an objection, they are met with the response that âthatâs just your white fragility talking.â
16 Likes
The bookâs slant reminds me more than anything else of Maoâs Cultural Revolution purges and the required self-condemnation of the accused.
Do I think institutionalized racism is rampant in the US?
Damned straight.
Do I think white folks need to take a good hard look at ourselves and our preconceived notions and make some hard changes?
Hell yes.
Do I think Ms. DiAngeloâs approach is the way forward?
Hell no.
Institutionalizing self-flagellation is not productive.
14 Likes
I am using this paragraph in an effort to clarify my stance on how the way one speaks to another is a great influence on how well the message is received.
The paragraph is dismissive to the intended audience. It starts with an assumption on the listenerâs emotional state that may or may not be true. It continues to make broad generalizations about why a group of people would have a particular reaction, with the assumption that because they belong to this group they are going to have this reaction. Finally, it insults the listenerâs emotional and academic intelligence.
None this draw the listener in.
Instead, I suggest the following:
On the topic of âwhite fragilityâ, I am greatly interested in a continued discussion, however I feel it would be most beneficial to wait until you are able to read the book. The author goes into further detail on how she came her her conclusion, how she developed her concept, and itâs potential and actual impact. I appreciate what you have stated so far and will take the time to reflect on them while you find a way to attain and read the book. I look forward to further discussion.
5 Likes
