Scan barcode
A review by jasperburns
Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment Is Killing America's Heartland by Jonathan M. Metzl
1.0
To be well-rounded, I try to read books outside of my normal worldview every once in a while. I'm one of those guys who dislike identity politics and thinks many people are blinded when seeing through the lens of race. I was hoping to learn something through this book to nuance my view of that position. Unfortunately, I did not. While the author is well-spoken and educated, I cannot say I came away from this book with much new knowledge or any changed opinions. I felt that I doubled-down in recognizing the failures of critical race theory.
The author is blinded by the identity politics dogma and the incoherence it applies to his arguments is obvious. Confusingly, Metzl introduces "whiteness" as not tied to being white, but instead a mindset. This is a terrible redefinition and it makes things more confusing. If whiteness isn't tied to race, to what is it tied... conservative politics? What does it mean when a black person believes in the same policies as one of the white people he describes? This is the kind of definitional maneuver that, when applied to public news, justifies absurd statements like Kanye West is no longer black by supporting Trump. It is poor enough of a definition that he doesn't seem to stick to it. Despite this explanation in the introduction, "whiteness" only seems referenced with regards to white people throughout the book.
The book starts with how "whiteness" is tied to gun culture, and how guns are killing people. The syllogism is approximately this: white people = guns, and guns = people dying, therefore white people = people dying. He parrots mostly standard democratic talking points and by tying in some personal interviews and statistics. He addresses approximately no strong standard conservative responses and thus makes arguments that feel quite weak.
But it is the tying of races to behavior that is so dangerous. Imagine if one were to make parallel arguments for other races. He ties white people to guns because of historical and modern tendencies to favor them over other races. It's the same logic that allows crazy right-wingers calling black people criminals because they historically commit more crime. We need to examine the behavior, the ideology, not the skin color.
After guns, he critiques other aspects of conservative principles (opinions on healthcare, reductions in social spending, etc) by tying them to whiteness. And then he again blames whiteness for being what kills people. This book would have been better if it was framed as how conservative politics was affecting society. I might not agree with all its conclusions but I would have given it an extra star or two. But by making it about race, the author abandons cogency for politically correct dogma.
The author is smart and measured in his words but not so in the basic assumptions that undergird the foundation of this argument. I cannot recommend this book to anyone, as there are more useful critiques of conservative ideology that are not shaded by racial dogma.
View my best reviews and a collection of mental models at jasperburns.blog.
The author is blinded by the identity politics dogma and the incoherence it applies to his arguments is obvious. Confusingly, Metzl introduces "whiteness" as not tied to being white, but instead a mindset. This is a terrible redefinition and it makes things more confusing. If whiteness isn't tied to race, to what is it tied... conservative politics? What does it mean when a black person believes in the same policies as one of the white people he describes? This is the kind of definitional maneuver that, when applied to public news, justifies absurd statements like Kanye West is no longer black by supporting Trump. It is poor enough of a definition that he doesn't seem to stick to it. Despite this explanation in the introduction, "whiteness" only seems referenced with regards to white people throughout the book.
The book starts with how "whiteness" is tied to gun culture, and how guns are killing people. The syllogism is approximately this: white people = guns, and guns = people dying, therefore white people = people dying. He parrots mostly standard democratic talking points and by tying in some personal interviews and statistics. He addresses approximately no strong standard conservative responses and thus makes arguments that feel quite weak.
But it is the tying of races to behavior that is so dangerous. Imagine if one were to make parallel arguments for other races. He ties white people to guns because of historical and modern tendencies to favor them over other races. It's the same logic that allows crazy right-wingers calling black people criminals because they historically commit more crime. We need to examine the behavior, the ideology, not the skin color.
After guns, he critiques other aspects of conservative principles (opinions on healthcare, reductions in social spending, etc) by tying them to whiteness. And then he again blames whiteness for being what kills people. This book would have been better if it was framed as how conservative politics was affecting society. I might not agree with all its conclusions but I would have given it an extra star or two. But by making it about race, the author abandons cogency for politically correct dogma.
The author is smart and measured in his words but not so in the basic assumptions that undergird the foundation of this argument. I cannot recommend this book to anyone, as there are more useful critiques of conservative ideology that are not shaded by racial dogma.
View my best reviews and a collection of mental models at jasperburns.blog.