If you're not triggered by white fragility read on
"During this time of division and conflicting opinions, this time of accusations and realisations, I've occupied myself in the penning of a book. I've given Public Pressure the green light as it were to publish my author’s intro and subsequent first chapter. If you're not triggered by white fragility as a concept, then please, feel free, read on, if only for the reappropriation of character alias' from Reservoir Dogs."
Author's introduction to Mr Brown by John Clay
We've all had those discussions on Twitter, Facebook and the like where the platform in question fails us. Unlike a televised debate, users are expected to moderate the conversation, be eagle-eyed for nuances such as tone and gross exaggeration laced with sarcasm. How many of these conflicts completely derail into personalised assaults due to ego? How often have you sensed someone's anonymity fuel a brazen lack of courtesy, otherwise applied in real life?
In this book, I have collected many conversations that took place over the pandemic of 2020. Shining a light on attitudes of race, gender and capitalism was my aim, and to directly lift these points of view from my echo chamber and present them in a removed context of an online zine for the delectation of others who have experienced similar interactions.
I have taken the liberty to edit for further punctuation, grammar and spelling. Free of the inherent bias afforded from likes and emoji's, dialogue is presented with no attempt to 'clean up' any claims which appear impulsive or unsubstantiated after their posting.
Chapter 1 - Mr Blue, Mr White and Mr Brown
Husband and wife, Mark and Patricia McCloskey were seen aiming guns at demonstrators who walked by their palatial property in St. Louis on Sunday evening. Mark, 63, spoke out, claiming the protesters tore down the gate into their private community. He said they were having dinner outside when a 'hoard of people' crashed through the gate. The lawyer alleged they were in 'fear of our lives' and received death threats from the crowds and described the incident as 'storming the Bastille'. A live stream of the incident shows the protesters walking through an open, intact gate. (There are pictures online of the gate in disrepair, but there is no way to ascertain at what point the gate received such damage and from who).
They are immediately met with an armed Mark McCloskey yelling at them to 'get out'. Police said Monday that the McCloskeys would not be charged. There is an ongoing investigation into trespassing and assault by intimidation against the couple by protesters in the crowd.
The protesters were en route to Mayor Lyda Krewson's home to demand her resignation due to her publication of names and addresses of people calling for the reallocation of funds from the police to other community services.
The following transcript occurred on Facebook over a few days in late June, shortly after the story went viral. Furthermore, names have been changed to protect the identities of those who took part. In line with my love of cinema, my alias in chapter one is that of Mr Brown, a character from Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. Join the thematic dots at your leisure.
Mr Brown: … Yeah, I guess opposing BLM is as logical as opposing the single most compelling stance against racism in a long time.
Come on now, surely standing outside your home with a message of solidarity scrawled on a piece of cardboard is better than meeting people with a gun?
Anonymous #1: And far more likely to stop them from damaging your property.
Mr Brown: Yup. I just don't understand the philosophy of people essentially becoming concerned with movements over what they initially stand for and to use any negative elements of said movement to essentially call for them to be aborted so we can go back to 'normal'.
Mr Blue: I didn't say back to normal. I said back to being productive. Do you own your home? Do you have a property of any sort, whether they are items or buildings it doesn't matter? Those people spent their time, money and resources to refurbish that house. It is a historical attraction in the town, with tours being offered by appointment as I understand. It is still a private residence.
I don't care how easy it would be to hold up a sign, I'm defending their right to not resign themselves to the mob. Why do the protesters get to dictate what's right and wrong? Why does anybody? My support is behind the message, not the organisation. There, I said it. Nobody can disagree with the phrase, but the movement has some sketchy goals, and I just don't agree with them. My right to do so.
I also don't agree with the idea of demanding someone's capitulation with the threat of force or violence. As we now operate our laws on the perception of a crime being committed, these homeowners perceived a threat, so they chose to defend their property, and I congratulate them for doing so.
Mr Brown: Define productive before the recent understanding and proactivity before the recent BLM movement?
Resign yourself to the mob, or brandish a gun?
Comfortably air your view around a dinner table about not being racist but then when given a chance to show solidarity whip out a pistol? Oh dear.
I commend you for supporting the message, but it's meaningless without doing something. What were a majority of people focusing on in their day to day before Floyd?
You congratulate these people on arming themselves when there are other ways to resolve this event in a country that as pointed out earlier, has a dark history, it's yet to resolve.
If some felt as passionately about buildings and their right to exercise the 2nd amendment rather than campaign about the injustice of the 13th, we would be having a more productive conversation. Address the bigger issue, rather than these tangential nonsensical passionate calls to protect property, because property can be rebuilt or - in this case - defended without the threat of violence.
Bearing arms does not solve the short or long term issues on this topic. I'm sure I don't need to point out the whys and wherefores.
Mr White: It's about the wider picture, that's what everyone else is seeing. It's the great narrative distilled into one picture. Two clearly mediocre human beings in a position of palatial excellence behind walls to create economic and social disparity are threatened by those who have access to none of that and are protesting equality - no, not even that - a reduction in brutality and prejudice against them. If a BLM March went past my house, I wouldn't fear them - because I haven't done anything to anger them.
That's my point. Guilt is built in to the white, affluent US psychology but is now hidden by aggression and defensiveness. My point. Guns out.
Mr Blue: By the same token, it is just as easy for the protesters to not enter a gated property. Bend the knee, capitulate, let us do what we want, and we won't burn your property or invade your personal space.
I'm not advocating for violence, but when we live in a world where the perception of a crime is enough to pursue a conviction, then I say well done for sticking up for yourself. I'm not going to act like some saviour who needs to raise someone else up. I don't oppress anyone, I'm not supporting any violence against anyone. I think the conversations that are being had are couched in the idea that if you disagree with position 'x' you are a racist. I disagree entirely. Mr White, they didn't pass by their house on the street. They forced a gate open and entered a defined, private garden. This wasn't a street protest, it was effectively a home invasion.
Mr White: Mr Blue, nobody is advocating violence. But I'm only seeing a white guy brandishing a semi-automatic assault rifle - which I doubt he found on the floor at the time - at people who are belligerently walking on his grass. And you are reducing everything to immediate cause and effect.
The news items you're referring to are in most part a hangover from apartheid and the white regime treating black people as second class citizens. This is the point, and this is what is relevant and what many people are finally realising. There's a sprawling narrative that needs to be dismantled that leads to these events. You're looking at a single chapter. Everything in that situation has wider causes and implications. Everything. And it's not because black people have treated white people badly.
Mr Brown: Unless you're a mind reader, it's unfair to paint all protestors as violent and keen to destroy property. Tell me I'm wrong, that they phoned the police, that they tried to reason with them before bearing arms, that they've gone on TV and suggested that what they did escalate the situation.
We have people running to the defence of white supremacy in this event. There are many ways to oppress people. It's scary how many people aren't reading up on systemic racism, but consider themselves allies and have the movement's back. It's scary that they think they don't feel anything they can do, read up on, and yeah, protest about is powerful. You only have to look back over the decades as to how potent protest can be. I would blame media and various distractions in our western world, but hey, I don't know you, I can only surmise from your statements as to what your agenda is on the single most divisive element of the human condition that permeates every institution we've created.
Mr Blue: Then you are also making a massive assumption. I'm actively calling for people to talk. Not march through other people's gardens. Not start rioting and looting. Not dictating to others how to act, think, speak or feel. I'm saying that we are now in a world where people are convicted of crimes based on the Perception of a criminal act. Not evidence. No witnesses. The perception of the individual. These homeowners, by that rule, perceived danger, and as is their right to do so in the States, they defended their property with force in the face of a perceived threat.
This mangling of language and changing of definitions is fucking up the ordinary person's understanding of the world. This means that now, that means this, and neither means anything!
If you want to protest, do it. If you don't, then don't. Respect other people's right to not protest if they choose, leave them alone to their lives. This is asinine.
Mr Brown: It is asinine to proliferate that talking is enough or that rioting and looting is your first go-to image of protests on this topic. You don't mention the other ways people have protested, and you make no mention of your experience or gumption to read up on such topics via hardback, podcast, anti-racist book club or zoom conference.
Perhaps we're on the same page but differ in terms regarding this particular event. Perhaps you're constantly listening to black people about their experience but in this particular event fail to understand the nuances of the situation. You have no idea how I'll react to any reveal of your journey since and well before May 25th, but I hope in your sharing we'll find common ground. I can start if you believe such a conversation can lead to action?
The choice is yours, and I mean you no ill will x
Mr Blue: Mr Brown, nor I. I just find it frustrating that I am held to the same standard as a dead man from hundreds of years ago, merely by existing.
I resent the notion that I am guilty just by being born in a place at a time with a certain skin tone.
When I say I personally don't consider skin tone to be an issue, I'm not being racist, nor am I ignoring the past with regards to the role the west played in the slave trade. I just think it's more valuable to the world as a whole if we consider people's value based on their ability and their character. I stand by what I said, if political violence is the choice of action, then count me out.
Once we start down that road, it gets ugly, and I want no part of it.
Mr Brown: 'I am held to the same standard as a dead man from hundreds of years ago, merely by existing.'
Anyone doing this is prejudiced. I and any self-respecting member of BLM are keen on dismantling systemic racism in the institutions we both rely upon, not the seeking out of guilt in white people.
Is that what you think is going on?
I hope not; otherwise, this will be a longer and far more useful conversation for you and a familiar one for me.
Just so we can nip it in the bud, what books have you read up about in regards to white privilege and how to go about proactively being an ally?
Mr Blue: I'm honestly not interested in being an "ally". This, I think, is where our paths diverge a bit more abruptly. I don't think in terms of exclusion or inclusion. If someone has good ideas, let's hear them. If they are bad ideas, I can ignore them at my leisure as well. Colour of skin does not come into it for me. To suggest that I need to ally myself with a particular race or religion or creed or sexuality or gender, is again, all down to perception. I don't want to be a Saviour. I don't want to "lift up voices with my own". That, to me, is hugely patronising, and speaks to the mentality of those who wish to use this as a means to coerce people. We are all capable of achieving great things, our global history is beset with tales of slavery, racism and oppressed communities. What we don't need to be doing is drawing lines of division based on race, because that didn't end well the first time around.
Mr Brown: Lines in communities, job centres, police forces, hospitals, courts of law, prisons, UK laws and US constitutions, armies, entertainment, sport, space programs and yeah, the list goes on as to where lines are already drawn.
Define ally, as it seems the term is negative to you.
Must I assume that you feel it's unnecessary to understand white privilege beyond the terminology? Is reading a book about it a waste of time to you, or was what you read easy to debunk? Is it something you recognise as a problem to address, or is it a situation imagined by others?
Keen to know as it will make this thread far easier to handle.
Mr Blue: Mr Brown, I have never treated anyone differently for their colour or religion. Nor for their other immutable characteristics. If I start segregating people by the way I act around them for no other reason than the colour of their skin, that is in itself racist. I cannot square the circle you are presenting. I was not raised to be racist, I don't think nor act in terms of race division, I treat you as I would treat any other person. That is my point. Artificially enforcing a mode of behaviour based on ethnicity or skin colour flies in the face of this so-called equality.
I judge people based on deeds and character, not based on a preconceived idea of that person. For me, personally, being an "ally" means accepting terminology that I disagree with, and that is my right to do so.
Mr Brown: I think my attempt to address systemic racism and the existence, and therefore, destructive elements of white privilege are losing out to your need to defend yourself personally.
I'm sorry you've seen my previous questions as not relevant to our conversation, as they remain unanswered and thus negated in usefulness.
Mr Blue: I feel my answer addresses at least part of your question. As I don't feel the need to adjust my behaviour, and while that part of my autonomy is still intact, I don't see the value in reading something that endeavours to alter that. The lines you talk about being drawn in society are the exact reason that reinforcing them is a terrible idea.
There are aspects of this topic that I feel are being weaponised, and there are arguments that hold water that are being undermined by this enforcement of racial division. How can we argue for equality when we are actively looking to draw divisions, despite wanting to eliminate racial division? It makes no sense. If my position in society is dependent on what books I read and what views I hold, and hence, whether those books and views are correct, then I want off this ride.
Mr Brown: If your position is made upon a subject which you experience second hand rather than first, it may be of benefit to listen to those who experience it first hand. Dismissal of their questions, reasoning and literature isn't only closed-minded, it suggests belligerence you affix to them, which can lead to understandable anger.
I posit that your position can't be adjusted via magic or hokum (as they don't in my estimation exist). Such superstitious ideas may as well be what you're weary of when we consider your reaction to reading a book.
You actually defend against reading a book on systemic racism. I find that not only illogical, but a surefire way to de-legitimise your theories and assistance in the talks you say you encourage.
You misconstrue the witnessing of racism in systems as a problem in itself. To suggest I'm wrong and not read up on it is like saying you understand the history of UK civil rights but don't wish to read a book on said topic for fear it might 'alter your autonomy'.
Perhaps for you solving racism means watching films such as 'Get Out' or/and 'US' and thinking at least race isn't an issue over here. The post Race lie of Obama being president is still an issue, and I feel that unless you're able to take your own defensiveness out of the question (I never wanted your guilt, and that's where this conversation began to become truly revealing/personal), it will always be a case of you finding yourself in a position where you've somehow become the victim.
I wish our curriculum was more comprehensive, and I wish our critical thinking on race didn't frame people as guilt hunting, non-negotiable looters who keep rocking the boat, seemingly for no good reason.
My parting question would be how can we argue for equality alongside people who are not versed in how systemic racism affects us everyday?
Mr Blue: I am not arguing against reform. That is part and parcel of society. I am a social conservative, I have leanings to the left and right (I hate having to seat my stance as such, but I'm using the common nomenclature) I'm not claiming to have the answers, that is not for me to assert my opinion any further than that.
As I say, if you want to protest, do it. If you don't, then don't. If the established laws allow you to defend your property with a show of force in the face of a perceived threat, you can. If you don't live somewhere like that, then you seek alternatives. I'm a firm believer in the autonomy of the individual, and I will always argue against the imposition of an ideology or mode of thinking upon someone. If someone has racist ideas, unfortunately, that is their right. Racism is not something to be solved, not while lines are being drawn across racial barriers. As long as people exist, there will always be an "us and them".
Mr Brown: Your ability to ignore my questions is a clear sign of hearing but not listening to minority concerns. There is a fantastic passage in one of MLK's speeches about the dangers of the moderate liberal. Perhaps you'll be motivated to locate it and add it's logic to your assessment of race. Perhaps you might have a knee jerk reaction to further recommended knowledge.
I can't see us continuing this element of the conversation and moving forward, which is probably a shame as your need to talk on behalf of anti-racists is rendered moot by not answering my questions.
Mr Blue: You make a lot of assertions about me and further assumptions about my ability to hear or listen or understand. I made my stance clear, I won't purport to be able to answer questions I don't know the answers to. I don't know what we should do. I have an idea that what we shouldn't do is further reinforce the racial lines you yourself have alluded to.
I make no assumptions about you, I only speak for myself.
Mr Brown: And I suggested literature. My only flaw was in not being specific in my course to ascertain (multiple times) if you had already read it.
You use ignorance as a defence, rather than a measurement in time between seeking answers. If you want to do better in a computer game, you look up content online, or you at least ask a friend. Same logic applies here.
Read anything by Akala or perhaps consider using your search engine to check out 'Why I'm No Longer Talking to White People About Race'.
I have made assertions based on your belligerence and your need to posit yourself as the oppressed person, constantly swatting away some ideology that in imbibing might somehow corrupt you. I'll disengage on this element and consult other parts of this thread if need be. I don't understand your reluctance to talk to someone black about what they've been through for 43 years. Perhaps your authority on race needs looking into. Perhaps your lack of motivation is disturbing to me because you claim to be inspiring 'talks'.
Whoever listens to you might be keen to assess what they hear when/should they read these records.
Mr Blue: I have not expressed a reluctance to do anything. If anything I've been saying there needs to be more dialogue. That could very well be a means to bridge the gap. Perhaps, as you say, a better range of studied subjects that raise these topics and allow for discourse. That's the most important thing, there must be a free flow of ideas and fair, open debate. Without crowds of braying protesters trying to shut down people's right to assemble and have these conversations. If I came across as belligerent, it was not my intention.
Mr Brown: 'Perhaps, as you say, a better range of studied subjects that raise these topics and allow for discourse.'
This is what I see after many exchanges such as this. I take it as a sign that my actions have not been in vain.
I hope you have a good rest of the day and that any book I've suggested opens further dialogue.
Have you watched a documentary called 13th on Netflix?
Anonymous #2: Mr Blue, I recommend you read White Fragility By Robyn Diangelo.
Mr Blue: I don't think I'll get what you think I'll get from that, I'm sorry to say.
Mr White: Mr Blue, do you realise that's exactly the reply someone who would benefit from the book would give? How can you possibly know that?
Mr Blue: Mr White, that depends on your point of view. This is all about perception. I choose not to prostrate myself at the altar of wokeness. I'm sorry, I can't stand this condescending and arrogant bullshit. I feel it's particularly insulting not to me but to those black and minority ethnic people who have had their cause usurped by white people.
From black conservatives who get told they are a c**n or an uncle Tom for speaking out against it, to ordinary people who find themselves at the receiving end of vile online brigading as a result of expressing their view.
The very fact that I do not accept the term used as valid, this reading would not be useful, as it requires me to accept certain things as true before even starting. This is a point of difference, as I said before, if I artificially inject this into how I speak to people then it is forced and not free. It becomes racial because it is a requirement to separate opportunities for blacks and whites for education, employment, training even housing.
I'm not going to get into it again today, I have other things to get on with besides defending myself against a barrage of questions asking that I justify my every opinion and explain myself.
I think it is hugely arrogant to assume that I am the "kind of person who would benefit". Sorry, but who the fuck has the right to make that judgement?
I have explained that my stance is to espouse de-escalation of racial violence and tensions, not because it will make me feel better, but because if there isn't, we are going to see much worse.
What I don't understand is how someone who actively calls for non-violence, a de-escalation of tensions and for the individual to be treated as such and not prejudged for their skin, could possibly be the kind of person who needs to adjust his behaviour to be an ally. I'm not even an adversary.
Mr White: Mr Blue, You're still missing the point. You're exhibiting exactly the fragility it's talking about. You find the concept of reading a book with alternative views in it offensive because you think it'll indoctrinate you which it only could if you actually agree with it. At this point, you haven't read a single page. It's Schrödinger's book right now to you.
I don't fancy reading it either, but I'm not against what it might say because it might be right... It's your reaction that's getting the response that's annoying you. It's like you've pinballed into every cliche of the standard white reaction to this situation. Protest, by the way, isn't marching. These are protests - by definition, they should cross the lines set by those they are actively protesting against.
That's protest.
It's war by people unsupported by an authority. They can't be as brutal or savage as say, a US army sent to kill Iraqis for oil, but they have a more valid reason for fighting back. The only reason violence isn't on the cards for BLM is that the narrative associated black people with violence already - so they're actively restraining themselves. Or would you rather they put hoods on and hung white folk from trees in their garden? Drag white folks behind their cars? Set fire to white suburban residences? They can credibly do so as it's equal to what's been done to their culture within living memory.
How about if one of those BLM protestors decided, without provocation that the house owner had done something wrong, so he and several other black men restrained him and leaned on his throat until he asphyxiated? Again, justified. We have video footage of that one. It's not equal.
An act of violence by a black person would bring down incredible violence. An act of unprovoked murder, on video, shown worldwide, in which the victim begged for almost ten minutes only ends with conviction because enough people noticed.
You're on the wrong side of this mate by being even-handed about it.
Mr Blue: Mr White, stop making assumptions. My "fragility" has nothing to do with this. It began as a discussion about whether or not two people were justified in coming out of their property to issue a warning of lethal force. Not about my white fragility. I find the term offensive because it immediately assumes something about the individual. I object to the enforcement of language and speech.
I don't believe that an act of black on white crime (to use an ugly phrase) would garner a massive response. Not now. The public awareness and media coverage alone would ensure that any perpetrator would be finished. The way George Floyd died is not in question, it was evil, horrific and now the cop is going to jail.
As I say, I'm not going to get back into this, I believe that being even-handed is the way forward, you believe that taking a side is best. Fair play. You do that, I'll keep not being a racist and get on with my life over here. Have a good day everyone.
Mr White: Mr Blue, actually I think the term is unhelpful. It's designed to get the hackles up and reveal the 'fragility' but who wouldn't be offended by being told their moral centre is delicate. So I'm with you there. Sadly, as has been well realised - simply not being racist is a passive act.
No one thinks you're racist. Only by actively working against racism and it's framework are you actively in support of Black people. Simply saying 'I'm not prejudiced' isn't an act of change. It gets no further than you. The BLM requires more proactive support from white culture to effect genuine change.
Mr Brown: Hey, guys, let's make progress occur by suggesting the obvious: Mr White, how about you check out one of the books on the subject and report back here. That way, your words will have more validity and therefore, more consequence. Mr Blue, I hope we can talk again once Mr White gets back to us, as I think our dialogue was heading to a place that was ultimately positive. For the record, a lot of my black friends want the involvement of those who have privilege precisely because of their influence. To suggest that I, they and other blacks feel patronised negates (or unwittingly seeks to silence) my previous comments. I hope my intentions are more clear than ever, and I hope your feeling of being controlled or limited subside. The narrative shouldn't be about your lack of voice.
That is not your reality and to suggest so means a severe lack of cognisance of what my experience has clearly been on this thread. I never wanted your guilt, shame, fear, or castigation. I wanted you to hear another point of view and remark upon it after doing your own research. The books cited here offer ideas for you to accept or reject. There is nothing more compelling to myself as an artist or a human than a new idea. Being afraid of them is to negate life. x
Mr Blue: Mr White, again, this is where we will diverge. I support the sentiment. I have my issues with the organisation, and the self-proclaimed Marxist leadership, but that is to do with my own political values.
White people, in my opinion, need to stop white knighting for everyone. It is a form of soft supremacy, we are so great we can use our position to uplift you inferior folk. I find it quite sinister, to be honest.
The way it is framed in the media and on social media, in particular, is that if you are not in direct support of the movement, then you ARE a racist. If you question their values or principles, then you ARE a racist. The difficulty I see these days is that the divisions are so definite that any transgression leads to an extreme response.
I have pretty milquetoast takes on this by many standards, but because they don't line up with the prescribed doctrine, then I might as well be Hitler to some. Not anyone here I might add, but I have had this experience while trying to discuss similar topics in an open and honest sense.
While I will admit I might have expressed reluctance to read something new, it was more the way it was conveyed. Like there was something fundamentally wrong with how I viewed the world, and this would fix me. I have the same feeling with "The Wire" on TV. The more people tell me that it is the best thing on, and I NEED to watch it, the more I'm likely to resist.
Mr Brown: Do you have anything to say about my last comment? It would be polite to acknowledge its existence, even if you don't support its content.
Mr Blue: Sorry Mr Brown, I'm busy today, so my attention is not wholly on this. I'm afraid.
I agree, as an artist myself, the 'new' is always a fascinating thing. My concerns about narrative are backed up by my own experience. I have witnessed people being removed from groups for differing opinions. I have been subject to disgusting attacks from white people when discussing political topics. Just for taking the centre path I've been called a Nazi, a Thatcherite, fascist. All because I dared to ask questions and counter the established line.
I will continue to be open to discussion, and I have appreciated the measured and non-reactionary conversation we have had. It does make a change these days.
If I have the opportunity, I will endeavour to get round to the books you suggested.
Mr Brown: I'm sorry you've had shit said to you that was hurtful. I'm sorry you have not been listened to.
I hope you understand that one of the benefits of privilege is that despite how busy we both are, one of us will have the luxury of putting the subject aside because of their second-hand experience. The other (being quite busy, I assure you) does not have that privilege. I need not patronise you as to why.
There is a shared trauma of racism, yes, but we mustn't think that the idea is to wait for the opportunity to heal. If we get a broken leg, we make the time to fix it, right?
No one wants to be in either of our positions, and they have always been different, even before the media, the protestors and those people who bandied the term Nazi at you came into play.
With your permission, and in the interests of spreading the idea that discourse need not be as vitriolic as we've both encountered, may I reprint this discussion in blogs that seek my opinion regularly? I could break the conversation into a series. I would obliterate names as I am not in the business of that kind or journalism. My interest is in spreading positive engagement.
I hope you take the time to understand the merit of my request.
Mr Blue: Mr Brown, I have no problem with that. If it proves to be a useful tool, then go ahead.
Mr Brown: Awesome. Pick an alias - Mr White, Mr Brown or Mr Blue.
Mr Blue: Mr Brown is this a loaded question. I'll go blue … just to be safe.
"Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
Martin Luther King - Letter from the Birmingham jail - April 16, 1963