5 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

One of the worst things about Kendi’s brand of antiracism is that you can either be Antiracist per his definition or—according to him—racist by default, since he claims there is not such thing as middle ground (i.e., you cannot be “not racist”). This kind of trap is very frustrating to me because it is based on a false dichotomy and because it manipulates individuals into feeling that they have to think a certain way.

Expand full comment

I disagree with Kendi on a number of things but I think he’s essentially right here. I’m curious why you (and so many other people) seem to think he is saying people are “racist (or even anti-racist) by default”. From various interviews such as this PBS one, he seems to be arguing the exact *opposite*: (https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/bestselling-author-ibram-kendi-how-to-be-an-antiracist/)

KENDI: Yes. I mean, I think many Americans say that they’re not racist, because they believe and have been taught, really, that a racist is essentially a bad person, that if you admit you’re racist, you will always be a racist. And that’s like tattooing the R-word on your forehead, and that you have — we apparently have racist bones in our bodies, which allow some presidential candidates, Republicans and Democrats, to say, I don’t have a racist bone in my body. What that means is that this is an essential term, you become a racist. And what I argue and show in my work is, no one becomes a racist or even an anti-racist. It is a reflection of what a person is doing in each moment. And people change. And so if in one moment a person is saying that a particular racial group is inferior, they’re being racist. If, in the very next moment, they’re supporting a policy that’s leading to equity and justice, they’re being anti-racist. And there are so many people with both racist and anti-racist ideas who support racist and anti-racist policies. And, because of that, we can’t label them one of the other permanently, right? We can always say what they’re being in each moment.“

Based on the above, my interpretation is that:

1. He’s against “neutrality” in moral issues. So for example, in WWII, I think he’d say that you could either support Nazism or actively fight against Nazism but it would be wrong to take a Switzerland-type position. I agree. I think such positions attempt to minimize the consequences of neutrality in order to justify being selfish and cowardly behavior.

2. I think he’s saying that because people are complicated and constantly changing, we shouldn’t judge them as “racist” or “anti-racist” but rather judge and condemn specific beliefs, writings or actions motivated by racism when they are. Again, I think this right and necessary.

If you have legitimate reasons (with evidence)to disagree with either my interpretation or evaluations, I’d appreciate learning about them. Thanks.

Expand full comment

I think you're right to point out that he doesn't label *people* per se, merely their behaviors. That's a necessary distinction to make. I also think the person you're responding to is right in that the only two labels Kendi assigns to behavior are "racist" and "anti-racist". The idea that there is no such thing as a truly neutral behavior is crazy-making. For people with higher neuroticism, the idea is very easily internalized as "my every waking moment must be imbued with anti-racist intent or else I'm being racist".

Expand full comment

Who said anything about there not being “any such thing as a truly neutral behavior “?!? There are billions of ideas and behaviors and yes, it would be “crazy-making” to judge all of them - especially complicated or nuanced ones.

But for ideas like “racism” or “Nazism” or “fascism” or “communism”, it shouldn’t be too difficult to determine that these things are *unequivocally bad*.

Given that, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask people to consider whether or not their actions are knowingly or inadvertently helping to promote those ideas - especially since Americans have a long history of *not* asking themselves those questions. Might some people who are highly neurotic take that too far and start questioning ridiculous things like whether or not doing yoga is “cultural appropriation”? Sure. But why should the validity of political movements that ask us to re-assess things like police training, red-lining and celebrating pro-slavery confederate war heroes be predicted on the possible negative effects of neurotic individuals (on both sides) who choose to misinterpret the goal of such movements?!?

Expand full comment

The issue here is that 'Nazism' represented a specific time and group of people in both the past and currently, in a pretty clear ideological sense.

The term 'racism' is a bit trickier, as, Kendi's version is defined differently than the current textbook version "The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins."

The current 2.0 version seems to include notions of 'systemic power' and 'hierarchies of privilege'. It 's easy to see how anything defined this way can become messy and weaponized.

Determining yourself as either racist or 'anti-racist' seems to have EVERYTHING to do with what and how we define what racism even is!

Expand full comment
Error