My thoughts are as follows: I haven't read "White Fragility" yet (it's sitting on my shelf), but I definitely plan to write a comprehensive review of it, once I do complete a full reading. Which is sort of why I was grateful that Steve beat me to the punch, as far as publicly critiquing it. But I *WAS* already familiar with many of Robin DiAngelo's philosophies and approaches to "racial education" and "diversity training," prior to the publication of "White Fragility" -- and, from the extensive amount of her online writings that I've read, I fundamentally disagree with (and am diametrically-opposed to) her perspective on race relations (she LITERALLY runs workshops on how to "be less white"). I find her definitions for racism and oppression -- in addition to her assessment of human psychology overall -- to be extremely reductive, intellectually-vapid, and offensive.

Granted, when I do finally read the full book itself, I'm sure there will be several points on which I agree with DiAngelo -- such as her overview of the realities of systemic racism (and some legislative solutions for it, if she bothers to offer any) along with how BIPOC voices are so often silenced by society. But even a broken clock can be right fourteen times during a given week, while still being wrong 143 other times in the same week.

It's not so much DiAngelo's position as a White woman that I find objectionable -- I'd be similarly opposed to such a harmful worldview if it came from a Black, Indigenous, Latino, AAPI/APIDA, or MENA author. But DiAngelo's own whiteness (and her overall cluelessness as to how to communicate with rational people...essentially reducing everyone to de facto color swatches) just makes her presumptuousness extra-insulting...like a rotten cherry on top.

I would be open to conversing with you further about my own views on this overarching topic in another venue, if you'd prefer. Just let me know.