Is Everyone Really Equal? A Student’s Response to Chapter 3 and 4
Is Everyone Really Equal is a novel by Ozlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo that introduces individuals to concepts that are fundamental in helping to understand and become involved in social justice education. The chapters of the book are based off of these key concepts that vary from oppression and power to racism, each divulging into several subsections that explain these words to their core and their understanding in a social reference frame. I believe that both Sensoy and DiAngelo are right in what they discuss within the lines of their book, but my criticism lies in their definitions of these key concepts and their arguments to help prove their viewpoint. …show more content…
However, I will respond to a few statements within these two chapters that I disagreed with. The biggest problem of mine arises from the definitions that Sensoy and DiAngelo give to the “key concepts” of social justice, at least in relation to the word that is being defined. This may sound a bit confusing, but let me elaborate further. Within the explanatory novel, it is stated that “There is no such thing as reverse racism or reverse sexism (or the reverse of any form of oppression)” (2012) and that while (insert minority group) can be prejudiced, they cannot be racist or sexist, etc. This is because, in the context of the book, all people are inherently prejudiced or discriminatory but only the “dominant group” per say, has the “social, historical, and institutional power to back their prejudice and infuse it throughout the entire society.”(2012) The problem is, the reverse of any “ism” does not exist. For example, reverse racism is simply racism. The definition of racism can be said to be the belief that every member of each race possesses characteristics and or abilities specific to that race, as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Reverse racism feeds the very concept that someone who is in a privileged position cannot be targeted in a racist manner. In this case, minorities such as Hispanics and African-Americans can be racist, and those in the dominant group such as Whites can have racism against them. At least in singular cases, such as a Native-American being racist against a White male because the man is white, however this cannot be true within the frames of an institution where the White male is more privileged. So the problem happens not to be their definition but instead the word that they are trying to define based on the
Is Everyone Really Equal is a novel by Ozlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo that introduces individuals to concepts that are fundamental in helping to understand and become involved in social justice education. The chapters of the book are based off of these key concepts that vary from oppression and power to racism, each divulging into several subsections that explain these words to their core and their understanding in a social reference frame. I believe that both Sensoy and DiAngelo are right in what they discuss within the lines of their book, but my criticism lies in their definitions of these key concepts and their arguments to help prove their viewpoint. …show more content…
However, I will respond to a few statements within these two chapters that I disagreed with. The biggest problem of mine arises from the definitions that Sensoy and DiAngelo give to the “key concepts” of social justice, at least in relation to the word that is being defined. This may sound a bit confusing, but let me elaborate further. Within the explanatory novel, it is stated that “There is no such thing as reverse racism or reverse sexism (or the reverse of any form of oppression)” (2012) and that while (insert minority group) can be prejudiced, they cannot be racist or sexist, etc. This is because, in the context of the book, all people are inherently prejudiced or discriminatory but only the “dominant group” per say, has the “social, historical, and institutional power to back their prejudice and infuse it throughout the entire society.”(2012) The problem is, the reverse of any “ism” does not exist. For example, reverse racism is simply racism. The definition of racism can be said to be the belief that every member of each race possesses characteristics and or abilities specific to that race, as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Reverse racism feeds the very concept that someone who is in a privileged position cannot be targeted in a racist manner. In this case, minorities such as Hispanics and African-Americans can be racist, and those in the dominant group such as Whites can have racism against them. At least in singular cases, such as a Native-American being racist against a White male because the man is white, however this cannot be true within the frames of an institution where the White male is more privileged. So the problem happens not to be their definition but instead the word that they are trying to define based on the