Introduction to DiAngelo:
She is known for her work pertaining to “white fragility”, an expression she coined in 2011 and explored further in a 2018 book entitled White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.
DiAngelo’s claim that “To be less white is to: be less oppressive, less arrogant, less certain, less defensive, less ignorant, more humble”. It also showed DiAngelo asking viewers to “break with white solidarity”.
In June 2021, DiAngelo published Nice Racism: How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm. It is a continuation of White Fragility.
Introduction to Douglas:
Stephen A. Douglas – Wikipedia
In his “Freeport Doctrine” of 1858, he repeatedly said that he did not care whether slavery was voted up or down, but only that white people had the right to vote it up or down. He denounced as sacrilegious petitions signed by thousands of clergymen in 1854, who said the Kansas–Nebraska Act offended God’s will. He rejected the Republican assertions that slavery was condemned by a “higher law” (Seward’s position) and that the nation could not long survive as half slave and half free (Lincoln’s position).
Douglas always had a deep and abiding faith in democracy. “Let the people rule!” was his cry, and he insisted that the people locally could and should make the decisions about slavery, rather than the national government. According to his biographer Robert W. Johanssen:
Douglas was preeminently a Jacksonian, and his adherence to the tenets of what became known as Jacksonian democracy grew as his own career developed. … Popular rule, or what he would later call popular sovereignty, lay at the base of his political structure. Like most Jacksonians, Douglas believed that the people spoke through the majority, that the majority will was the expression of the popular will.
Who is more similar to Hitler? We of course know the answer (Hitler sided with Douglas’ enemy Lincoln:
and (see below) successfully reduced by tens of millions the population of those whom DiAngelo criticizes (Hail Hitler!), after all), but someone came up with a clever test to find out for sure:
We took 3 real anti-Jew quotes from Adolf Hitler, 3 real anti-White quotes from Robin DiAngelo, and 3 real anti-Black quotes from Stephen Douglas. (Douglas was a 19th century American politician who debated Abraham Lincoln). Then, we created anti-Jew, anti-White, and anti-Black variations of each quote, and showed it to 428 college graduates or college students (72% White). This means that 1/3 of participants saw the real quote verbatim, whereas the other 2/3 saw a version of the quote that was manipulated by changing the original (e.g., replace “Jew” with “White” or “Black”, or any other combination thereof). This is shown in the Table below. For each quote, participants were asked to imagine that an intellectual or political leader uttered the statement. They then indicated whether they agreed with the statement by selecting: “definitely no,” “probably no,” “probably yes,” or “definitely yes.” Participants answered this question for all nine quotes, and all were in the same frame (anti-Jew, anti-White, or anti-Black).
We are of course not surprised:
But can you guess who came up with this test? Answer:
Michael Bernstein is an experimental psychologist and an Assistant Professor at Brown University.
He is someone who dislikes Hitler’s ideas (his surname will tell you why), and is using the results of his test to imply that DiAngelo’s ideas, not Douglas’, are the ones to be feared:
the death toll from just the European theater of World War II was at least 40 million. DiAngelo is not responsible for the death of anyone. But we can recognize this fact while still pointing to similarities in their thinking.
it is also interesting that endorsement of DiAngelo’s rhetoric closely paralleled that of Hitler’s.
As always, I am happy to achieve academic agreement with our enemies.
I think the research presented by Bernstein & Bleske-Rechek resolves the related question, “Will people on the modern American left endorse the actual Hitler’s actual virulent rhetoric, if it is framed as some sort of social justice by replacing “Jews” with “Whites”?