The Diangelo Model: A Comparative Analysis
Two noticeably different aspects of race relations are presented between these two pieces. While DiAngelo (2011) calls out the harm of conversations regarding race that rely on the comfort of White people, Tatum (2000) is advocating for discussion that addresses this exact discomfort. In polarizing generalities, Tatum outlines the race conversation as one that needs to be carefully cultivated while DiAngelo disparages what is lost in careful cultivation. They are, of course, both right to some extent, and though a paradigm shift has occurred that frames progressive understandings of race dialogue to much more closely follow the DiAngelo model, instituting aspects of them both is integral to ensuring these dialogues actually take place but
…show more content…
DiAngelo claims that this White fragility is cultivated for every White individual over their lifetime, but the rejection of blame for nonpersonal decisions is a natural response. Tatum’s (2000) story of her friend’s son who came to the question of “Are all [W]hite people bad?” (para. 8) after hearing about Rosa Parks outlines this kind of response. A five year old surely does not exist in a vacuum of White privilege since he has still come into contact with many of the underlying systems and headstarts that White people receive, but the cultivation of White fragility as one of his many lenses with which to see the world is, at most, significantly underdeveloped. While DiAngelo’s tactics represent a completely necessary antagonistic force to the current unhurried, lukewarm approach with which White people attempt to battle racism, more of an effective vision for an end goal is visible in Tatum’s piece. A decrease of White fragility ideally exists in an environment that encourages people of color to be able to let go of the hardened exterior that has protected them from so much over their oppressed histories. In the classroom, this method looks like a combination of DiAngelo and Tatum; there is no longevity in continuing to breed resentment by framing these issues into binary melodramas, but there is no progress in excruciatingly slow appeals to what small amount that White people decide is acceptable to criticize this
DiAngelo claims that this White fragility is cultivated for every White individual over their lifetime, but the rejection of blame for nonpersonal decisions is a natural response. Tatum’s (2000) story of her friend’s son who came to the question of “Are all [W]hite people bad?” (para. 8) after hearing about Rosa Parks outlines this kind of response. A five year old surely does not exist in a vacuum of White privilege since he has still come into contact with many of the underlying systems and headstarts that White people receive, but the cultivation of White fragility as one of his many lenses with which to see the world is, at most, significantly underdeveloped. While DiAngelo’s tactics represent a completely necessary antagonistic force to the current unhurried, lukewarm approach with which White people attempt to battle racism, more of an effective vision for an end goal is visible in Tatum’s piece. A decrease of White fragility ideally exists in an environment that encourages people of color to be able to let go of the hardened exterior that has protected them from so much over their oppressed histories. In the classroom, this method looks like a combination of DiAngelo and Tatum; there is no longevity in continuing to breed resentment by framing these issues into binary melodramas, but there is no progress in excruciatingly slow appeals to what small amount that White people decide is acceptable to criticize this