To put it bluntly, I believe that the white collective fundamentally hates blackness for what it reminds us of: that we are capable and guilty of perpetrating immeasurable harm and that our gains come through the subjugation of others. We have a particular hatred for ‘uppity’ blacks, those who dare step out of their place and look us in the eye as equals.
The giveaway is when DiAngelo actually states that blacks of achievement are the most disliked by whites. Whites are far more favorable toward African-Americans who have experiences success than of poor or working-class whites, a reality that anyone breathing would understand. Joe Biden once famously observed “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man.” That nice-looking guy became President of the USA twenty-two months later.
Nonetheless, the thrust of her remark that "the white collective" ("they're all the same") "hates blackness" (the color?) because it reminds whites their gains have "come through the subjugation of others."
Upon the premise of those who think like DiAngelo, reality intrudes:
To be sure, I wouldn't know how to "rate racial groups," given not only that there are good and bad individuals among all races, but more fundamentally: rate- how? Would this be in terms of intelligence, athletic ability, friendliness- or the capability of subjugating others?
Nonetheless, it is clear there is, on some level, a great detail of negativity toward whites among blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in the USA, and far less negativity among whites toward those three groups. Additionally, whites seem not to be as impressed with others of their group as are blacks, Hispanics, and Asians of theirs.
Call it white guilt or generosity- or maybe whites are simply most realistic about people. In either case, discrimination seems to be on the upswing, whether in Georgia or other states wary of allowing black people to vote or in California, where
Oakland will host one of the largest guaranteed income pilot projects in the country to give 600 BIPOC families with low-incomes an unconditional $500 per month for at least 18 months....
Oakland Resilient Families is a collaboration between the Oakland-based community organization Family Independence Initiative and the national Mayors for a Guaranteed Income. The project will support 600 Oakland families while building momentum for strategies to eliminate racial disparities in economic stability, mobility, and assets through a guaranteed income..
In case this press release from the city leaves any doubt as to the genetic preferences of city officials, Or that sins of the fathers (or mothers) will be visited upon the sons (or daughters), Oakland proudly explains the program is
for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) (i.e. groups with the greatest wealth disparities per the Oakland Equity Index) with low incomes and at least 1 child under 18, regardless of documentation status. The term “family” is defined broadly to recognize that families come in all shapes and sizes.
All shapes and sizes, just not all colors, and good luck to the families not among the 600 eligible for the assistance. Availability of funds should be based solely on income aside from ethnicity. It's ironic that a race-based program would spring up only now that millions of Americans have tracked their ancestry- and found surprising,often complicated, results. (Though clearly white, I myself am 22% of Asian and Latin American heritage. This sort of thing is not unusual.)
Determining who is so completely devoid of whiteness that they are eligible for the program should be fodder for serious legal challenge. That's as it should be. Racial discrimination has been immoral for the two-and-a-half centuries of this nation's history. No government can wave a wand and make it moral.