Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • The Unbearable Whiteness of Being Robin DiAngelo

    Posted by Lucretius on July 18th, 2020 (All posts by )

    Dear Robin:

    I watched your video. No, not that free one on YouTube, but the one you presented to me and my co-workers and for which you probably charged ten thousand dollars. Nice work if you can get it, as Ira Gershwin once quipped. (Do Jewish folks count as white, too?)

    No, I haven’t read your book on white fragility. The video was enough for me, riddled as it was with execrable reasoning directed against ridiculous strawmen such as: individualism is the doctrine that human beings are utterly uninfluenced by the culture in which they live. Also, reading all those little black letters surrounded by an expanse of white paper is kind of a metaphor for structural racism, isn’t it? So reading must be bad.

    Although I’m not buying what you’re selling, I’ll grant that you’re full of passionate intensity for your cause. Sadly, this reminds me of that great poem by the Irish poet William Butler Yeats, in which he observed that “the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” (Do Irish folks count as white, too?)

    The exact nature of your cause is somewhat unclear, couched as it is in the fog of critical discourse analysis and other Marxist claptrap; yet apparently it has something to do with establishing the cultural hegemony of your black-and-white ideology in which skin color is the only thing that really matters in life: in other words, a cleverly manipulative repackaging of the ideas of Italian communist Antonio Gramsci. (Do Italian folks count as white, too?)

    As you no doubt know but wish to suppress, 100 years ago there was no such thing as whiteness. Instead, the Anglo-Saxon majority in America drew cultural, not color, distinctions between themselves and the Irish, Italians, Slavs, and everyone else – at best barely tolerating some of these peoples. Your precious notion of whiteness is a more recent ideological construct, into the origins of which you and your ilk likely don’t want us to inquire.

    So Robin, what’s really the point? All I got out of your talk is that anyone who doesn’t have really dark skin (yes, I noticed your jibe about light-skinned blacks and their distasteful “colorism”) should feel endlessly guilty in an original sin kind of way and therefore should endlessly atone for their sins through self-renunciation, confessions of complicity in systemic racism, and preferably re-education at the hands of high-paid diversity consultants like you.

    Finally, your talk didn’t mention any actual Black people – like, say, Martin Luther King, Jr. The reason isn’t hard to find: MLK eloquently said that “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Yet to you that is unacceptable, because you believe a money-grubbing, power-hungry, paleface re-education professor has the right to dictate to Black folks what they can think and how they can live (and if they don’t submit to your dictates, I guess they too must count as white, at least on the inside). Last I heard, that kind of dehumanizing condescension was called racism.


    9 Responses to “The Unbearable Whiteness of Being Robin DiAngelo”

    1. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

      There you go being reasonable again. We’ve warned you about that, comrade.

    2. Anonymous Says:

      Last I heard, that kind of dehumanizing condescension was called racism.

      I’m not sure if anyone of influence and action believes in anti-racist ideology.

      Leftists started with class (“A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at each end”) but WW1 proved the illusion of class and reality of nation. Since 1914, Leftists began incorporating more race* into their theories, beginning with Mussolini and on to Hitler. American Leftists, like their European counterparts, couldn’t stand that race, no class, supplied motivation to the people, but Americans did something about it: they invented gender socialism. The current attacks on White women again show that race is the real, powerful motivator for the mobs, the academics, the politicians and that class and gender are distant secondary consideration, an extra pebble to add to the indictment of the Left’s enemies.

      That is why charging Leftists with hypocritical “racism” fails**. They’re not serious, as someone worried about their soul (Leftists are atheists) or moral standing (Leftists celebrate living in the muck) would be. The Left wants power and will use any club at hand. The hatred of Whites is the nearest and most largest.

      Class theory after the overthrow of aristocracy, is the hatred of the bourgeoisie [Smithian success] (as an example, Kulak, Capitalist Roader, etc.); race theory, the hatred for the culturally successful(and it’s not restricted to Whites; the Left will go on to demonize Chinese, Japanese, Koreans…); gender theory, the hatred of those who are successful [Darwinian success] (which is why the Left celebrates abortion and alternative sexualities).

      * I write “more race” because socialists from Engels and Marx to Wells and Stalin held frighteningly awful theories of inferior races being driven to extinction by “the forces of history” [= their armed forces].

      ** Of course within anti-racist ideology, only Whites can be racist, proving that the charge of “racism” has nothing to do with morality and proving the Left is all about race, first, last, and always. Similarly, charges of the “New Class” (see Djilas) being a new feudal aristocracy failed to halt the spread of socialism/communism after WW2.

    3. Brian Says:

      The election of Barack Obama and the fact that he wasn’t greeted with universal adulation for everything he ever did has led to the bizarre phenomenon (well documented in scientific studies, not just blog comment sections) of white liberals absolutely loathing their own race.
      Black people in their world are nothing but a cudgel to beat lower class whites who don’t subscribe to their political preferences.

    4. Kepha Says:

      If white people move out, it’s white flight; if they move in, it’s gentrification. If they eat burgers and fries and do their reading in English and German, they’re monocultural; if they eat spring rolls and learn Chinese, they’re guilty of cultural appropriation.

    5. Gringo Says:

      White people talking about how to be “non-racist” strike me as dumping on fellow whites lower on the status chain. “You’re racist and I’m not.” “See how enlightened I am, you klutz.”

    6. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

      @ Gringo – yes, it is Goodwhites verus Badwhites, top to bottom. They allow the black people involved to think they are important in this, but they have only symbolic value.

    7. Sgt. Mom Says:

      The ‘white fragility’ thing is basically – upper middle-class whites feeling vaguely guilty for their class privilege. So deflection, by dumping on working-class whites.
      Yeah … nope. Not buying that load.

    8. Christopher B Says:

      It’s brilliant marketing. You can’t sell economic class conflict in America but you can get people steeped in the idea that half the country is ‘deplorables’ to buy into implementing the same policies to combat ‘racism’.

    9. Rachel Says:

      I agree with anonymous: antiracism or whatever it’s called today, is just a tool, as is Me Too and whatever they’re calling transgenderism these days. What we’re seeing here is a power grab. The useful idiots camping out on city streets may believe it, but I doubt that anyone else does. A big part of this is keeping everyone off balance. A perfectly valid statement today may prove tomorrow to be untenable and grounds for dismissal. And now they’re combing through people’s past statements to find objectionable material, like the Boeing executive who objected to women in combat in 1987.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.