Robin DiAngelo Zitate

Ein paar Zitate aus den Schriften von Robin DiAngelo, weil ich es immer ganz interessant finde mal was aus den Schriften selbst zu lesne

“It is white people’s responsibility to be less fragile; people of color don’t need to twist themselves into knots trying to navigate us as painlessly as possible.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
Klar, die Unterdrückende Gruppe ist immer dafür verantwortlich, dass etwas aufhört und das gilt natürlich noch mehr, wenn sie dadurch verletzt sind, dass man ihnen aufzeigt, dass sie Unterdrücker sind.
“I believe that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color. I define a white progressive as any white person who thinks he or she is not racist, or is less racist, or in the “choir,” or already “gets it.” White progressives can be the most difficult for people of color because, to the degree that we think we have arrived, we will put our energy into making sure that others see us as having arrived. None of our energy will go into what we need to be doing for the rest of our lives: engaging in ongoing self-awareness, continuing education, relationship building, and actual antiracist practice. White progressives do indeed uphold and perpetrate racism, but our defensiveness and certitude make it virtually impossible to explain to us how we do so.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
Also weiße Linke sprechen sich gerne von Schuld frei, tatsächlich kann es aber schwieriger sein sie auf ihren Rassimus hinzuweisen, weil sie denken sie seien bereits nicht mehr rassistisch und das auch zeigen wollen. Tatsächlich muss man aber lebenslang daran arbeiten, es gibt anscheinend keinen Zustand in dem man nicht mehr rassistisch ist.
“I was co-leading a workshop with an African American man. A white participant said to him, „I don’t see race; I don’t see you as black.“ My co-trainer’s response was, „Then how will you see racism?“ He then explained to her that he was black, he was confident that she could see this, and that his race meant that he had a very different experience in life than she did. If she were ever going to understand or challenge racism, she would need to acknowledge this difference. Pretending that she did not noticed that he was black was not helpful to him in any way, as it denied his reality – indeed, it refused his reality – and kept hers insular and unchallenged. This pretense that she did not notice his race assumed that he was „just like her,“ and in so doing, she projected her reality onto him. For example, I feel welcome at work so you must too; I have never felt that my race mattered, so you must feel that yours doesn’t either. But of course, we do see the race of other people, and race holds deep social meaning for us.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
Martin Luther Kind mit seinem Traum, dass Leute keine Hautfarben mehr sehen, ist damit erledigt, er ist rassistisch.
Ich würde es so sehen:
Zu sagen, dass man keine Hautfarbe sieht kann natürlich bedeuten, dass man Probleme, die mit einer Hautfarbe einhergehen ausblendet. Aber üblicherweise bedeutet es ja, dass man aus seiner Sicht jeden gleich behandelt und für die eigene Behandlung des gegenüber die Hautfarbe keine Rolle spielen soll, auch wenn man einem gleichzeitig bewußt ist, dass andere das nicht machen und das dann Rassismus sein kann.
Aber es verträgt sich natürlich schlecht mit einer allgemeinen Opferrolle nach Gruppenzugehörigkeit.
“The key to moving forward is what we do with our discomfort. We can use it as a door out—blame the messenger and disregard the message. Or we can use it as a door in by asking, Why does this unsettle me? What would it mean for me if this were true?”
Alles beides kann man durchaus fragen. Allerdings ist die Frage, ob es war ist, sicherlich eine, die zuerst zu beantworten ist.
White people raised in Western society are conditioned into a white supremacist worldview because it is the bedrock of our society and its institutions. Regardless of whether a parent told you that everyone was equal, or the poster in the hall of your white suburban school proclaimed the value of diversity, or you have traveled abroad, or you have people of color in your workplace or family, the ubiquitous socializing power of white supremacy cannot be avoided. The messages circulate 24-7 and have little or nothing to do with intentions, awareness, or agreement. Entering the conversation with this understanding is freeing because it allows us to focus on how–rather than if–our racism is manifest. When we move beyond the good/bad binary, we can become eager to identify our racist patterns because interrupting those patterns becomes more important than managing how we think we look to others.

I repeat: stopping our racist patterns must be more important than working to convince others that we don’t have them. We do have them, and people of color already know we have them; our efforts to prove otherwise are not convincing. An honest accounting of these patterns is no small task given the power of white fragility and white solidarity, but it is necessary.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism

Das ist eben ein klassisches Erbsündekonzept. Die Sünde ist überall, sie ist tief in unserer Gesellschaft und sie ist nicht zu bestreiten. Wer sie bestreitet, der verliert wertvolle Zeit, die er besser damit verbringen könnte die Sünde zu vermindern. Und dann im zweiten Teil die Aussage „unser rassistischen Muster zu stoppen muss wichtiger sein als andere zu überzeugen, dass es sie nicht gibt“. Also hinterfragen ist Tabu, es geht einem damit nur darum wie man vor anderen dasteht und man behindert den Abbau.
“The simplistic idea that racism is limited to individual intentional acts committed by unkind people is at the root of virtually all white defensiveness on this topic.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
Auch wieder eine gute Aussage, wenn man innerhalb der Theorien Kritik abblocken möchte. Es gibt kein Herausreden damit, dass man nicht bewußt rassistisch ist, man ist es jedenfalls unterbewußt und deswegen muss man seine Schuld eingestehen.
“Racism is the norm rather than an aberration. Feedback is key to our ability to recognize and repair our inevitable and often unaware collusion. In recognition of this, I try to follow these guidelines: 1.   How, where, and when you give me feedback is irrelevant—it is the feedback I want and need. Understanding that it is hard to give, I will take it any way I can get it. From my position of social, cultural, and institutional white power and privilege, I am perfectly safe and I can handle it. If I cannot handle it, it’s on me to build my racial stamina. 2. Thank you. The above guidelines rest on the understanding that there is no face to save and the game is up; I know that I have blind spots and unconscious investments in racism. My investments are reinforced every day in mainstream society. I did not set this system up, but it does unfairly benefit me, I do use it to my advantage, and I am responsible for interrupting it. I need to work hard to change my role in this system, but I can’t do it alone. This understanding leads me to gratitude when others help me.”
Klingt etwas nach einem Glaubensbekenntnis. Man gibt sich ganz dem wonnigen Gedanken hin, dass man ein Sünder ist der dabei ist sich zu verbessern.
“If I believe that only bad people are racist, I will feel hurt, offended, and shamed when an unaware racist assumption of mine is pointed out. If I instead believe that having racist assumptions is inevitable (but possible to change), I will feel gratitude when an unaware racist assumption is pointed out; now I am aware of and can change that assumption.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
Die Befreiung durch Anerkennung der eigenen Schuld und die Verbesserung scheint ein zentrales Element zu sein. Eine klassische Erlöserreligion: Wer gesteht ist schon fast frei von den Sünden.
“The most profound message of racial segregation may be that the absence of people of color from our lives is no real loss. Not one person who loved me, guided me, or taught me ever conveyed that segregation deprived me of anything of value. I could live my entire life without a friend or loved one of color and not see that as a diminishment of my life. In fact, my life trajectory would almost certainly ensure that I had few, if any, people of color in my life. I might meet a few people of color if I played certain sports in school, or if there happened to be one or two persons of color in my class, but when I was outside of that context, I had no proximity to people of color, much less any authentic relationships. Most whites who recall having a friend of color in childhood rarely keep these friendships into adulthood. Yet if my parents had thought it was valuable to have cross-racial relationships, they would have ensured that I had them, even if it took effort—the same effort so many white parents expend to send their children across town so they can attend a better (whiter) school. Pause for a moment and consider the profundity of this message: we are taught that we lose nothing of value through racial segregation. Consider the message we send to our children—as well as to children of color—when we describe white segregation as good.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
Das ist dann der Ansatz, wo man seinen Kindern auf Teufel komm raus einen „diversen“ Freund besorgen muss, einfach damit man dann gut darsteht. Der „Token Black Friend“ würde man da wieder im Feminismus sagen. Aber geschickterweise geht es ja auch um die Vergangenheit und die Verfehlungen der eigenen Eltern – hätten sie es für wichtig gehalten, dass man einen schwarzen Freund hat, dann wäre man jetzt weniger rassistisch.
“While implicit bias is always at play because all humans have bias, inequity can occur simply through homogeneity; if I am not aware of the barriers you face, then I won’t see them, much less be motivated to remove them. Nor will I be motivated to remove the barriers if they provide an advantage to which I feel entitled.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
Das ist die Idee, dass Privilegierte die Benachteiligungen nicht sehen können, mit dem dann auch die Deutungshoheit für die Nichtprivilegierten begründet wird.
“For those of us who work to raise the racial consciousness of whites, simply getting whites to acknowledge that our race gives us advantages is a major effort. The defensiveness, denial, and resistance are deep.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
Klar, weil sie daran dann direkt die ganze Erbsünde festmacht. Man reicht ihr den kleinen Finger und sie nimmt die ganze Hand.
“All systems of oppression are adaptive; they can withstand and adjust to challenges and still maintain inequality.”
Egal was mach macht es bleibt immer ein rassistisches System
“There is a difference between agreement and understanding: When discussing complex social and institutional dynamics such as racism, consider whether „I don’t agree“ may actually mean „I don’t understand.”
― Robin DiAngelo, What Does It Mean to Be White?: Developing White Racial Literacy
Widerspruch ist nicht gestattet! Wir haben die Wahrheit! Wenn du nicht zustimmst, dann hast du es nur nicht verstanden!
“The United States was founded on the principle that all people are created equal. Yet the nation began with the attempted genocide of Indigenous people and the theft of their land. American wealth was built on the labor of kidnapped and enslaved Africans and their descendants. Women were denied the right to vote until 1920, and black women were denied access to that right until 1964. The term identity politics refers to the focus on the barriers specific groups face in their struggle for equality. We have yet to achieve our founding principle, but any gains we have made thus far have come through identity politics.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
Auch eine nette Umdefinierung von Identititätspolitik.
“I am often asked if I think the younger generation is less racist. No, I don’t. In some ways, racism’s adaptations over time are more sinister than concrete rules such as Jim Crow.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
Natürlich nicht. Trotz einer vollkommen anderern Sicht darauf, trotz Jahren von Antirassismuslehrgängen, trotz eines schwarzen amerikanischen Präsidenten kann nichts besser geworden sein. Die Gefahr ist natürlich größer als jemals zuvor!
“Race scholars use the term white supremacy to describe a sociopolitical economic system of domination based on racial categories that benefits those defined and perceived as white. This system of structural power privileges, centralizes, and elevates white people as a group. If, for example, we look at the racial breakdown of the people who control our institutions, we see telling numbers in 2016–2017:

– Ten richest Americans: 100 percent white (seven of whom are among the ten richest in the world)
– US Congress: 90 percent white
– US governors: 96 percent white
– Top military advisers: 100 percent white
– President and vice president: 100 percent white
– US House Freedom Caucus: 99 percent white
– Current US presidential cabinet: 91 percent white
– People who decide which TV shows we see: 93 percent white
– People who decide which books we read: 90 percent white
– People who decide which news is covered: 85 percent white
– People who decide which music is produced: 95 percent white
– People who directed the one hundred top-grossing films of all time, worldwide: 95 percent white
– Teachers: 82 percent white
– Full-time college professors: 84 percent white
– Owners of men’s professional football teams: 97 percent white

These numbers are not describing minor organizations. Nor are these institutions special-interest groups. The groups listed above are the most powerful in the country. These numbers are not a matter of “good people” versus “bad people.” They represent power and control by a racial group that is in the position to disseminate and protect its own self-image, worldview, and interests across the entire society.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism

Das ist wieder die Annahme, das die Leute ebenfalls Identitätspolitik spielen und das für die Gruppe, der sie angehören und nicht etwa wie DiAngelo für andere Gruppen oder gar nicht. Vielleicht fühlt sich Bezos Cuba näher, wo sein Ziehvater herkommt etc.
“White fragility functions as a form of bullying; I am going to make it so miserable for you to confront me—no matter how diplomatically you try to do so—that you will simply back off, give up, and never raise the issue again.”
Das kann sicherlich eine Strategie bei einem berechtigten Vorwurf sein. Aber es generell zu unterstellen ist ebenso eine Strategie dafür sich gegen Kritik zu immunisieren.
“If, as a white person, I conceptualize racism as a binary and I see myself on the „not racist“ side, what further action is required of me? No action is required at all, because I am not a racist. Therefore racism is not my problem; it doesn’t concern me and there is nothing further I need to do. This guarantees that, as a member of the dominant group, I will not build my skills in thinking critically about racism or use my position to challenge racial inequality.”
Eine Vielzahl ihrer Texte scheint sich darum zu drehen Leuten immer wieder Grunde zu nennen, warum sie nicht hinterfragen sollen, alle Rassismusvorwürfe akzeptieren sollen und sich selbst als Rassist sehen sollen. Dann ist die ungünstige Binärität behoben. Du bist weiß? Also bist du ein Rassist!