If race is a construct, white fragility cannot exist

The argument

The objection here is that white fragility misidentifies where racial oppression comes from, and that its own framework shows this. On this account the sources of that oppression are structural: the base and the superstructure that rests on it, the corporate systems and political systems that allocate opportunity and reproduce the position of a minority population across generations. These operate impersonally. A system of that kind does not require that any particular person hold a particular attitude in order to produce its results; it would go on producing them even if every individual within it were well intentioned, because the outcomes are a function of how the system is arranged rather than of what its participants feel. White fragility, by contrast, locates the crisis in individuals, in a psychoanalytical predisposition attributed to white people as such and treated as the thing that sustains racial hierarchy. The objection is that this is a category error. It takes a structural phenomenon and relocates it into private psychology, which means that even if the described reaction were real it would be a symptom of the arrangement rather than its cause, and addressing it would leave the arrangement untouched. Proponents of this position argue that the mistake follows from treating race as a construct and then forgetting it. If race is constructed by the structures that oppress people, if the category exists because those systems made it do work for them, then the white individual is a product of the construction rather than its author and cannot be the source of the crisis. The analysis cannot both hold that race is structurally produced and then hold individuals personally responsible for producing it. On this reasoning white fragility has no coherent object: it names a personal failing where the analysis it depends on identifies an impersonal system. Because if race is a construct white fragility cannot exist, white fragility does not exist.

Context

The context of the argument is that race is a construct.This essentially means the political , economic and social conditions in the society that are alienating , oppression and marginalisation. This pre-disposes that the constructs of slavery ,segregation and colonialism were frameworks established.The construct also pre-disposes that until the construct is eliminated then emancipation shall never be realised. This essentially means that a form of a Revolution to eliminate these structures are of necessity .That as long as these structures exist then class struggle against the Black will persist.The only solution available is a form of a Marxist revolution to eliminate the structures. This then eliminates the fragility realism

Premises

Counter-arguments

The issue established calls for a radical solution.The de-prioritisation of white fragility then shifts the attention from re-constructing pre-existing narratives to seek radical solutions.In the worst case scenario armament of the black people is one that is a requirement.Secondly, the interrogation is specific that its an interrogation on structures, the power relations and the oppressor -oppressed existence in the status quo.

Rejecting the premises

The realisation of change through a view and analysis of the complex racial issues through structural analysis omits the inherent biases and prejudice hate that is perpetuated in the society.It takes a materialistic perspective and form of analysis.It omits the unequal power dynamics that exists amongst racial classes.That there's a deep epistemological bias that exists, that within family Units some families do propagate hate against the Black through partisanship to enhance white supremacy. It ignores the existence of black on black problems perpetuated by crimes within some contexts in America and European states such as Chicago and Dixon in Canada.

Framing

The Framing on the argument is on the basis that structural analysis of the American society is a reliable form of metric to understand the Black issues within the United States of America.This type of framing then eliminates the existence of White Fragility and presents a perspective that white fragility is an idealist concept.That it doesn't deeply interrogate the real material problems; the social and economic relations that exists within the society.So the best form of analysis that seeks to establish concrete truth is one that is based on structural analysis of the society to asses the race problem than an idealist form of White Fragility analysis.