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 behavi…
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".
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?!?
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!
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".
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?!?
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!