White fragility

Here's the thing about this book, if you disagree with anything, you're proving the author's point; and if you agree with anything, you're proving the author's point.

There are things in here that I agree with, or I never thought about a particular way and like, but there are also things I disagree with.

Agreements/good points. The last chapter is the best (though I still had some issues). The information about affirmative action was interesting in that it was not at all what I'd been under the impression it was. She also gave good historical context to some things. Not getting defensive outright is a good thing to keep in mind. The thing that made “colorblindness” the most clear was actually equating it with not seeing gender and how it's inherent - that's good to keep in mind as well. Also, I agree that people who think they're progressive can be the least receptive to some of the concepts.

Disagreements. Like I said, the whole book is a Kafkatrap. She also contradicts herself on a number of occasions and repeats herself in others. She also comes up with her own definitions for things, but also says those definitions are only applicable in this particular situation, not generally. She's also incredibly patronizing at times, and not against the people I'd have thought. I disagree with that there can never be a positive white identity, but... whatever. Reacting at all is also apparently racist, but at least I cry in the right way. Intent apparently never matters, and past personal history either.

Look, I don't deny that living in our society has repercussions that can be inherently racist. I think that's good to remember! But I disagree that just being white in the society makes you a racist. (But there I go again, just proving her point I guess.)

I'll read other books on the topic - I've already borrowed So You Want to Talk About Race from the library. I'm receptive to learning (especially given the current climate), but this book just didn't do it for me.