The History Book Club discussion
FREE READ (Only at the HBC)
>
WHITE FRAGILITY: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism - FREE READ (ONLY AT THE HBC) - READ AND LEAD - Leisurely Read
Mod
Trying to walk in other people's shoes is probably difficult for most people; but I think that everyone should be able to agree that there are racial problems globally and that in most countries - some sect or minority is being intimidated, treated poorly or worse which is unfortunate and inhumane. And that in this country we have the same issues.
I am trying to see the deflection - do you think that the white Republicans in the Senate who do not seem to want to do much regarding these issues are deflecting more than their Democratic counterparts who exhibit a bit more inclusiveness in terms of diversity? Is that deflection?
And thank you for your clarifications too. Helpful to bounce off ideas.
But what I think this book so far risks - is that it tries to generalize that if you do not agree with everything I am saying in my book then you are racist or exhibiting what she calls "implicit bias" - like she is calling out folks who just don't agree with some or a few or all of her basic premises.
For example, I could be reading some of the other selections that the group is reading about which deal with white colonists or the British - in the case of the Revolutionary War and I and others will find that we do not always agree with the author's interpretations of the motives and culpability of the whites discussed in this book in every instance.
Some feel that it is written more from the American colonists perspective versus the British perspective (some who feel that way are British) while the folks who do not see any implied bias on the part of the author do not share that perspective. So is it all about black perspective versus white perspective - is she making this all about white people and if they do not agree with her then she is targeting them with being racist? And I am not discounting the stats about how black people appear to be taken into custody versus white people and their outcomes - I agree with the stats accuracy that indicate that there are more issues with these events based upon the racial profile of the individuals and you have to wonder why the techniques used and the approach and the amount of force are different.
Changing the police training, procedures, accountability for the death of George Floyd or anyone else needs to be investigated, charged and addressed because these types of events are happening more in our black community but honestly they should not be happening to anyone. Being arrested should not be a death sentence.
Mod
Would the author say that both of these men are racist? Don't all lives matter? Just as don't all black lives matter? Is that just a play on semantics? I am trying to judge the language and why it isn't enough to say that Black Lives Matter, the Dreamers Lives Matter, the West Virginians Coal Miners lives matter, your life matters or mine. Why not just address the darn problem and leave out the theatrics, I guess is what I am saying.
I think the founding fathers indicated in the Federalist papers that factions, interest groups, every minority who had a grievance - and political parties were bad for the American republic and they would abhor identity politics, I think. I understand the suffragette argument that the white women wanting to get the vote needed white men to support them and their goal. And likewise I can make the transfer that black lives need white lives to support them.
Update on my thinking above: (watched video)
Liked Cedric Raymond's plea and rationale - very well spoken and he is correct about how sidetracking happens all the times with bills and can kill them before they even get a vote. Gaetz was over the top; but that is Gaetz's behavior and character and he was touchy for sure on the "son" issue. More so than he needed to be. Was that unconscious bias or conscious bias?
Law enforcement tactics are indeed an issue and it is going to take more than one bill to correct it. And correcting it has to occur at the local community level, and most importantly at the state level and there are 50 states that need to address this situation. I also want to say that there are many law enforcement officers who do their job every day without any issues and right now they are also going through a tough time.
But getting back to Raymond's argument - I have to ask why the backpedaling from the Republicans on these issues - what is in the way of the party of Lincoln being able to do something in a bipartisan way?
Was Gaetz's over the top reaction an example of how the author states that these reactions maintain racial inequality?
Mod
The author's definition of White Progressives:
The author states: "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.
Source: DiAngelo, Robin J.. White Fragility (p. 5). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.
My Response: What is most important is not the rhetoric or the type casting; but "actions" to rectify law enforcement practices and procedures and to create a level playing field and "actions" to fix the inequities so that "everyone" is treated fairly. The author's hypothesis (if you can call this an hypothesis) is that if you are white you are guilty of racism no matter if you say you are guilty or if you say you are not guilty and saying that you are not guilty - (according to the author) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are guilty anyway - so nobody gets off with this author. (smile)
Question: Is there any white person that the author does not consider racist or guilty of conscious or unconscious bias or what she calls implicit bias? Curious?
Mod
Onward - next!
Mod
The Challenges of Talking to White People About Racism
Pre-Reading:
Read the following quote. Journal your thoughts or discuss.
“Yet our simplistic definition of racism—as intentional acts of racial discrimination committed by immoral individuals—engenders a confidence that we are not part of the problem and that our learning is thus complete.” (p. 9)
Key Concept(s)
• Socialization - The author claims that there are social forces that prevent us from attaining the racial knowledge we need to engage more productively, and they function powerfully to hold the racial hierarchy in place. She claims that we make sense of perceptions and experiences through our particular cultural lens.
• Individualism - The author claims that individualism holds that we are each unique and stand apart from others, even those within our social groups. And that our group memberships, such as race, class or gender are irrrelevant to our opportunities. With individualism there are no intrinsic barriers to individual success and that failure is not a consequence of social structures but comes from individual character. According to the ideology of individualism, race is irrelevant.
• Objectivity- Keeping an open mind - That is difficult with this book since the author admits the following - "As a sociologist, I am quite comfortable generalizing; social life is patterned and predictable in measurable ways. But I understand that my generalizations may cause some defensiveness for the white people about whom I am generalizing, given how cherished the ideology of individualism is in our culture.
Source: DiAngelo, Robin J.. White Fragility (p. 12). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.
Discussion Topics and Questions:
1. What learning experiences required you to critically engage with the topic of race or racism? What was the impact? If you do not have any learning experiences to share, what do you believe would have been the impact? Identify a passage from chapter 1 that invokes any sense of discomfort.
a) Highlight this passage and return to reading it periodically as you work through the book.
b) What does this passage reveal about your socialization into the white racial frame? Does your discomfort shift over time? If so, what supported that shift?
c) What is most uncomfortable to you when discussing race? Why? When did you first notice that talking about racism is uncomfortable?
2. If you are working through these questions as part of a white discussion group, how will you keep the discussion on track (focused on ourselves and our own participation)?
a) How will you ensure that when common white patterns surface (distancing, intellectualizing, rationalizing), you will work to identify and challenge them rather than ignore or avoid them?
3. How do so many white people feel so confident in their opinions on racism, even as they live their lives in segregation?
4. How can we make generalizations about what it means to be white when we don’t know each person’s individual story?
5. What are some constructive ways to use your emotional reactions when your opinions on racism are challenged?
6. Explain in your own words the author’s critique of the ideology of individualism.
7. Consider the Key Concept(s) identified in this chapter. Expand on your understanding of them and give specific examples about how any of the Key Concept(s) impacted your ability to discuss race and racism.
Source: Reading Guides
Mod
Chapter 1 - The Challenges of Talking to White People About Racism
This chapter explains that two major challenges of talking to white people about racism are a limited understanding of socialization and a simplistic understanding of racism.
White people have been socialized to see that race matters, but not their own race. Specifically, the Western ideologies of individualism and objectivity make it difficult for white people to explore the collective aspects of white experience. Thus, collectively white people do not see themselves in racial terms.
Naming race, however, is a critical component of cross-racial skill building and is necessary in order to engage critically with the topic of race. Also, to increase the racial stamina that counters white fragility, white people must reflect on the whole of their identities and the impact of being members of their racial group.
Source: Reading Guides
Mod
a) I do not consider myself to have a limited understanding of socialization or racism.
b) I believe that my own race matters and I believe that "every race matters" - "all of humankind" and that "we are all created equal before God". I disagree with the author's statement.
c) I see myself in racial terms - I know that my race is Caucasian. So I assume that I am familiar with a white experience. I also concur that I do not know what it is like to have another type of experience like a black person might have and that is why I am reading these books in order to "understand" and to "learn more". So I disagree with the author again with her sweeping generalities.
d) I understand what she is trying to accomplish - to have all of us who have not led a black man's life to understand what that is about, how it feels, and the inequities associated with it. I think that there are a great many things that need to change with law enforcement practices and procedures and I was personally horrified at what happened to poor George Floyd - horrible and tragic.
e) OK, the author wants us to name race - so I have named race and I am fully engaged. I am fine with being a member of my racial group and I think it has given me blessings and inalienable rights under the constitution that others have not been as blessed with. And I am saddened by others who have suffered and are denied opportunities that possibly I have taken for granted. There are many members of the Caucasian racial group all over the world. There is great global sympathy and sadness at what has befallen some of these black men including George Floyd.
Mod
My thoughts are simple - I do not agree totally with this quote - I think everyone is part of the problem - and we need to work on these kinds of things together as a team - we are all Americans - as it relates to the George Floyd situation - our global members are all citizens of the world and care very much as well.
“Yet our simplistic definition of racism—as intentional acts of racial discrimination committed by immoral individuals—engenders a confidence that we are not part of the problem and that our learning is thus complete.” (p. 9)
Mod
Mod
Focus on the inequities that can be fixed and should be fixed immediately. The criminal justice system and affordable housing are a couple of places to start - and getting rid of the chokehold in all 50 states. Focusing on training for riot control and protests while keeping our officers safe (they are an important commodity too) - training for arrest procedures and backup - keeping the camera on and making sure your ID is showing. Treat every human being with respect - focus on the psychological background of recruits - focus on gun control in this country.
Mod
Mod
This is particularly interesting and the answer is - we can't. Everyone is different no matter their race or circumstances. And how can a white author speak about race without having any persons of color speaking firsthand about their own personal experiences and telling their own powerful story. That would have been invaluable hearing first hand experiences and empathizing with all of these individuals.
Mod
Listen, think, understand!
Mod
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado...
Source: CBS News
Note: This is the one area which I think is potentially harmful to officers - Officers can be held personally liable for damages up to $25,000 if they are found guilty of violating an individual's civil rights - ending "qualified immunity" - I am not sure that I agree with this one point - this is going to strike fear in the hearts of policemen and they will worry about the effect their profession can have upon their families and lawsuits. This opens the door to all sorts of frivolous claims as well. And right now being a police officer is extremely difficult and dangerous as it ever was. This may stop qualified applicants from becoming policemen and for existing policemen to remain policemen.
Mod
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday again turned away a slew of cases revisiting the controversial legal doctrine that shields law enforcement and government officials from being sued for actions taken in an official capacity.
The decision by the high court comes against the backdrop of protests that have erupted across the U.S. in response to the death of George Floyd, 46, and other unarmed African Americans at the hands of law enforcement. Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin pressed his knee to Floyd's neck for several minutes as he struggled to breath, and three other officers looked on. Chauvin has since been fired and arrested and charged with second-degree murder.
The Supreme Court has for weeks been weighing numerous cases involving qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that protects government officials from lawsuits stemming from conduct on the job unless they violate "clearly established" constitutional rights. But qualified immunity for police officers, in particular, has come under heightened scrutiny in recent years, as it makes it more difficult for victims to hold law enforcement accountable for use of excessive force Civil rights groups, lawmakers and legal scholars have urged the Supreme Court to narrow the legal doctrine, warning it allows police to act with impunity.
One of the cases the Supreme Court declined to review involved a Georgia police officer who shot a 10-year-old boy in the leg during pursuit of an unarmed suspect. The boy and five other children were playing outside when officers ordered them to lie on the ground as they pursued the suspect into their yard. One of the officers, Michael Vickers, fired twice at the family's pet dog, which was also in the yard, missing both times. But the second time he shot at the dog, he hit the young boy in the back of the knee. The boy's mom, Amy Corbitt, sued, and Vickers asserted qualified immunity.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Vickers, ruling he is entitled to qualified immunity.
Another legal battle involved Shaniz West, an Idaho woman who sued after police fired tear-gas grenades into her house during a search for her ex-boyfriend, who they believed was inside. But West had given police permission to enter her home and handed officers the keys to get inside.
A divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
A third case involved a Tennessee man, Alexander Baxter, who was bitten in the armpit by a police dog after surrendering to Nashville police who responded to a report of a residential burglary. The dog was released by one of the officers, Spencer Harris, after Baxter sat on the ground and raised his hands in surrender, according to the ACLU's petition with the Supreme Court. In that case, Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of certiorari, writing that "I continue to have strong doubts about our §1983 qualified immunity doctrine" as it "appears to stray from the statutory text."
Qualified immunity has found critics across the ideological spectrum, including on the Supreme Court, where Thomas, the court's most conservative justice, and Sonia Sotomayor, one of its most liberal members, have both warned against the broad leeway it gives to government officials.
In 2017, Thomas urged the court to reconsider its qualified immunity jurisprudence when it found an appropriate vehicle to do so, writing, "until we shift the focus of our inquiry to whether immunity existed at common law, we will continue to substitute our own policy preferences for the mandates of Congress." One year later, in 2018, Sotomayor wrote that a Supreme Court decision in favor of a Tucson, Arizona, police officer "tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished."
The Supreme Court created qualified immunity decades ago, but in recent years, it has turned away other opportunities to reconsider the legal shield. A Reuters investigation published in May found police have won 57% of cases where they asserted qualified immunity from 2017 to 2019.
While the high court rebuffed the chance to reconsider the doctrine, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have called for limiting qualified immunity amid the civil unrest sparked by Floyd's death in late May.
A sweeping police reform package introduced by House Democrats last week reforms the doctrine so victims can more easily recover damages when their constitutional rights are violated by police, and GOP Senator Mike Braun of Indiana said last week he is considering pushing for an end to qualified immunity.
But legislation restricting the doctrine could face an uphill battle. White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters last week that reducing immunity for police who violate civil rights is a "nonstarter" for President Trump. Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is leading Republicans' efforts on police reform, said on "Face the Nation" on Sunday that limiting qualified immunity would be a "poison pill" for legislation.
Video: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-...
Source: CBS News
Mod
Link to video: https://youtu.be/JU-3c04Fla0
Cato's Clark Neily explains problems linked to 'qualified immunity doctrine'
Link to video: https://youtu.be/F2mWQBAj_J8
Resolved: The Supreme Court Should Overrule Qualified Immunity [21st Annual Faculty Conference]
Featuring: -Prof. William Baude, University of Chicago Law School;
-Prof. Christoper Walker, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; -Moderator: Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, William & Mary Law School; - Link: https://youtu.be/NBqLpjg0wfY
Sources: Youtube, John Locke Foundation, The Federalist Society
Mod
Cuomo signs major police reform legislation banning chokeholds statewide, mandates department changes - BY AUDREY MCNAMARA - JUNE 12, 2020 / 1:48 PM / CBS NEWS
Link to article and video:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-c...
Source: CBS News
Mod
Baker unveils police reform bill, pushes certification of officers
By Matt Stout Globe Staff,Updated June 17, 2020, 1:44 p.m.
Link to article: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/1...
Source: Boston Globe
Mod
"Not naming the groups that face barriers only serves those who already have access; the assumption is that the access enjoyed ..."
Agree that is the impetus.
Mod
CHAPTER 1
THE CHALLENGES OF TALKING TO WHITE PEOPLE ABOUT RACISM WE DON’T SEE OURSELVES IN RACIAL TERMS
"I am a white American raised in the United States. I have a white frame of reference and a white worldview, and I move through the world with a white experience.
My experience is not a universal human experience. It is a particularly white experience in a society in which race matters profoundly; a society that is deeply separate and unequal by race.
However, like most white people raised in the US, I was not taught to see myself in racial terms and certainly certainly not to draw attention to my race or to behave as if it mattered in any way. Of course, I was made aware that somebody’s race mattered, and if race was discussed, it would be theirs, not mine. Yet a critical component of cross-racial skill building is the ability to sit with the discomfort of being seen racially, of having to proceed as if our race matters (which it does). Being seen racially is a common trigger of white fragility, and thus, to build our stamina, white people must face the first challenge: naming our race.
Source: DiAngelo, Robin J.. White Fragility (p. 7). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.
Mod
Aside from the Foreword by Michael Eric Dyson - where are the anecdotes and source material from persons of color. Their stories have the most dynamic effect on the conversations and those are the ones that will sway hearts and minds.
I have no idea why the author claims that she was not taught to see herself in racial terms nor to draw attention to race or behave like it mattered. I guess that is her experience and I can accept that.
However, I grew up in a community where everybody was friendly and my grandmother was revered and had everyone in for a cup of coffee or a cup of tea (hot or cold depending upon the time of year) and according to their preference.
She made sure that all of the post men, ice men, delivery people, neighbors and family were all welcome to have a refreshment and to have a piece of cake or whatever else she had baked.
She made everybody feel valued - she made everyone feel special. So I do not remember this "deep divide" that the author wants to create in her opening paragraphs. We live in a time where everybody wants division to further their own agenda. That was not the way my grandmother grew up or her ancestors before her. So their story is different from the author's.
Yes, there were African Americans on the street where we lived - they lived across the street and every neighbor on that street treated them equally and with dignity.
When my father grew up and went into the Army Air Corps which was the precursor to the Air Force, he was stationed down South and that was a rude awakening for him.
A pregnant African American woman with bags tried to get on the bus that he was on going back to the base - and this poor woman was rudely treated and yelled at by the bus driver. "Get to the back!" - the bus driver yelled.
My father promptly got up and offered her his seat since he could see she was having grave difficulty and was being mistreated verbally.
And my father with this one kind act, all of a sudden had a lot of unwanted attention placed upon him from the bus driver and others on the bus. The bus driver actually stopped the bus! He told my father - "don't ever do that again Yankee down here" - "right now your uniform is the only thing protecting you!"
My father never forgot that incident and he never forgot the look in the eyes of the woman who so gratefully took the seat.
Race should not matter - but it is true that things like the above happened and my father never forgot it. How differently he felt things were in the North where he grew up and that was the first time he saw racial inequities and injustice first hand.
I particularly do not relate to the statement that the author was made aware that somebody's race mattered, and if race was discussed, it would be theirs, not hers. But I believe that these were her experiences that molded her into who she is right now.
Everybody's life experiences are unique and are different and I do not think that you can categorize all whites into a single bucket - just like you cannot categorize other races in the same way. The author never met my father or my grandmother nor does she speak for any of them.
However, I believe the author's heart and mind are in the right place and she is trying to shine a light on the "disconnects" and she feels that her methodology is the right way to do that. It certainly might be for many; but no one size fits all.
I personally am moved more by how my father related that he felt on that day and how he would never forget that poor woman's eyes of silent gratitude and also the fleeting silent look in her eyes - which seemed to say without words "do you know what you are doing" - "you will get yourself in trouble with your kindness". I doubt she could believe his generosity of spirit either.
Someone's race does not matter to me. It is simply their genetic makeup. All of us are quite cognizant of our racial classification.
Naming your race is not difficult for some. It is my impression that the author thinks that we all live in a bubble.
What happened to George Floyd on national television was so shocking and terrible that it woke everyone up to the injustices that occur every day; that many of us in our race do not have to face; while others also because of their race do!
So hurdle number one is complete. Name your race!
Mod
I just watched the 1985 documentary - A Class Divided. Jane Elliott started out with this experiment with her third grade class. And ended up doing the experiment with teachers and corrections officer. It was a fascinating experiment. I would recommend watching it; if you haven't seen it before.
SEASON 1985: EPISODE 9
The day after Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed, Jane Elliott, a teacher in a small, all-white Iowa town, divided her third-grade class into blue-eyed and brown-eyed groups and gave them a daring lesson in discrimination. This is the story of that lesson, its lasting impact on the children, and its enduring power 30 years later.
Source: A Class Divided. William Peters, dir. and prod. Yale University Films for Frontline, PBS. WGBH Education Foundation, 1985. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/fi....
Discussion Topics and Questions:
1. Let me know your thoughts regarding this experiment.
Mod
CHAPTER 1: THE CHALLENGES OF TALKING TO WHITE PEOPLE ABOUT RACISM
1. Angela Onwuachi-Willig, According to Our Hearts: Rhinelander v. Rhinelander and the Law of the Multiracial Family (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013).
2. Larry Adelman, Race: The Power of an Illusion, video (San Francisco: California Newsreel, 2003); Heather Beth Johnson and Thomas M. Shapiro, “Good Neighborhoods, Good Schools: Race and the ‘Good Choices’ of White Families,” in White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism, ed. Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (New York: Routledge, 2003), 173–87.
Source: DiAngelo, Robin J.. White Fragility (p. 161). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.
by Angela Onwuachi-Willig (no photo)
by Ashley W. Doane (no photo)
Mod
7. Consider the Key Concept(s) identified in this chapter. Expand on your understanding of them and give specific examples about how any of the Key Concept(s) impacted your ability to discuss race and racism.
I believe in a great many of the concepts related to individualism. And I think that we are all brought up that way to believe in our uniqueness and that there will never be another you "exactly" and that applies to all races.
The author claims that the "racial status quo is comfortable for white people, and we will not move forward in race relations if we remain comfortable". However, I do not see how being white means that one is struggling with what it means to be white. I get that part.
And that is not why folks would be trying to learn more. I think that folks are trying to learn more because they are trying to understand what it is like "not being white".
Now I have gone through all of the questions and vocabulary in Chapter One - in the original chapter one reading guide questions - I included the notes on the vocabulary.
Mod
Mod
A
by
Michelle Alexander
by
Carol Anderson
by
Jean O'Malley Halley
Mod
Biewen, John. Seeing White. Podcast bibliography. Center for Documentary Studies, Duke University, 2015. http://podcast.cdsporch.org/seeing-wh...
Seeing White - Podcasts - are Season Two - very inciteful - "Obama was who we wanted to be - Trump is who we are" - reflective podcasts - good approach
by
Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
by
Dee Brown
Mod
No sources cited by author
Mod
No sources cited by author
Mod
No sources cited by author
Mod
Kamenetz, Anya. “Resources for Educators to Use in the Wake of Charlottesville.” NPR, August 14, 2017. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/....
by Ibram X. Kendi (no photo)
Mod
by
Resmaa Menakem
by Charles W. Mills(no photo)
by Eddie Moore (no photo)
by
Cherríe L. Moraga
by
Toni Morrison
Mod
No sources cited by author
Mod
No sources cited by author
Mod
No sources cited by author
Mod
No sources cited by author
Mod
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Trouble I've Seen: Changing the Way the Church Views Racism (other topics)Just Mercy (other topics)
Between the World and Me (other topics)
How to Be an Antiracist (other topics)
Between the World and Me (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Drew G. I. Hart (other topics)Bryan Stevenson (other topics)
Ta-Nehisi Coates (other topics)
Ibram X. Kendi (other topics)
Ta-Nehisi Coates (other topics)
More...
Rep. Richmond asks white members of Congress to listen because "you do not know what it is like to be an African American male" and to have a son who is an African American male.
He says that the KKK "is not the imminent threat that black men face on a daily basis," that "too often it is law enforcement."
He feels like Republican members of Congress are downplaying the role of racism in society as a whole, not just in extremist hate groups, and trying to distract from the main issue and the main threat to black Americans.
Rep. Gaetz then chimes in to give a typical white fragility response: I can't be racist because I have a black family member. Richmond immediately shuts him down to avoid getting "sidetracked," but Gaetz keeps trying to interrupt him and gets more and more upset until finally yelling "who in the hell do you think you are?" The committee chair cannot get Gaetz to stop yelling.
This is exactly what DeAngelo is talking about when she warns about unconscious bias and the refusal of many white people to listen and challenges the illusion of colorblindness and the disruptive, distractive tactic of white fragility. Many white people want to interrupt black people and anti-racists to lecture them about racism as if they understand it better, despite not being victims of it themselves. They use yelling or tears to take over and make the exchange about them and their own victimhood, just like when they refuse to say "black lives matter" and insist on saying "all lives matter."
I immediately thought of the book when I saw this video because it demonstrates exactly what she is talking about, and she does an amazing job of breaking down what is happening and what it means.
Source: Youtube