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.
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.
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!
Thank you for this thoughtful commentary--alas, Kendi's writing, filled with inaccuracy is all too popular. But see this delightful takedown of his other kid's book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgKkXwjHhbI
Damn, damn, damn! It's hilarious, too--biting satire but good-humored. Maybe it's on some other platform? If the author is out there, read this plea: put the video back up!
Thank you Moshe for the post! I will be having a discussion with some others on this topic next week to be aired on the Derate the Hate podcast. I'd be honored if you would join the discussion. Please reach out to me at your convenience via my website www.DerateTheHate.com
Thank you for this review. When I read this book (my 10th grader's honors English class used it as their textbook the entire school year), I thought it was ridiculous that he states that Booker T. Washington hated black men. Kendi really works hard to minimize him. My daughter was not reading Up From Slavery or learning about Booker T. Washington or WEB Dubois (they were learning about gender fluidity and pronouns in History). Booker T. Washington was a great man and did a tremendous amount for blacks. He opened 5,000 schools with funds from the president of Sears. He founded Tuskegee Institute and believe that people needed to learn to be self-sufficient as well as be educated. He observed that his fellow slaves had only learned one or two skills on the plantations and were unable to take care of themselves. He taught students physical skills along with educating them. This Kendi says was Booker T. Washington wanting blacks to serve in a blue collar role and be subserviently to whites. You cannot read Booker T. Washington's writings and believe that. Kendi says in the book that when WEB Dubois becomes an antiracist is when he returns from visiting the Soviet Union in the early 1900's and has an epiphany that Marxism is the only way forward. He was awarded the Stalin Peace Prize in 1952 and the Lenin Peace Prize in 1959. Funny that Kendi doesn't discuss what happened under Marx and Lenin. And my daughter's History and English classes certainly weren't covering it. A good assignment for our kids would be for them to research the individuals and read the books by Washington and Dubois, compare and contrast and see who they think helped humans most. I did find it interesting that when I was searching for the dates of the "peace" prizes, that someone has spent A LOT of time on the WEB Dubois Wikipedia page and removed information and made him sound like a much better person than he actually was.
Not only is the author of "Stamped" pushing a questionable perspective, he has blatantly and falsely twisted the ideas of persons and disciplines to his own bias. For example, he claims that Samuel Morton is the father of American Anthropology. Not so. Morton was not even an anthropologist. Franz Boas is considered the father of American Anthropology. He also claims Boas was racist, although Boas was one of the earliest persons to assert, over and over, that there are no genetic or biological differences between person of so-called races except skin color. There is absolutely no basis for categorizing people into races. We must stop using the term "race." "Race" is a social construct that is not real. But that doesn't mean "racism" doesn't exist. Kendi's book does not enable young readers or anyone else combat RACISM!
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.
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.
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!
It is the equivalent of assigning Mein Kampf in order to teach how to treat Jews!
Thank you for this thoughtful commentary--alas, Kendi's writing, filled with inaccuracy is all too popular. But see this delightful takedown of his other kid's book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgKkXwjHhbI
Humor is a lovely soldier in any fight for truth.
And that link is now gone from YouTube (of course).
Damn, damn, damn! It's hilarious, too--biting satire but good-humored. Maybe it's on some other platform? If the author is out there, read this plea: put the video back up!
Excellent review!
Thank you Moshe for the post! I will be having a discussion with some others on this topic next week to be aired on the Derate the Hate podcast. I'd be honored if you would join the discussion. Please reach out to me at your convenience via my website www.DerateTheHate.com
All the best,
WILK
Sounds good - message sent!
Thank you for this review. When I read this book (my 10th grader's honors English class used it as their textbook the entire school year), I thought it was ridiculous that he states that Booker T. Washington hated black men. Kendi really works hard to minimize him. My daughter was not reading Up From Slavery or learning about Booker T. Washington or WEB Dubois (they were learning about gender fluidity and pronouns in History). Booker T. Washington was a great man and did a tremendous amount for blacks. He opened 5,000 schools with funds from the president of Sears. He founded Tuskegee Institute and believe that people needed to learn to be self-sufficient as well as be educated. He observed that his fellow slaves had only learned one or two skills on the plantations and were unable to take care of themselves. He taught students physical skills along with educating them. This Kendi says was Booker T. Washington wanting blacks to serve in a blue collar role and be subserviently to whites. You cannot read Booker T. Washington's writings and believe that. Kendi says in the book that when WEB Dubois becomes an antiracist is when he returns from visiting the Soviet Union in the early 1900's and has an epiphany that Marxism is the only way forward. He was awarded the Stalin Peace Prize in 1952 and the Lenin Peace Prize in 1959. Funny that Kendi doesn't discuss what happened under Marx and Lenin. And my daughter's History and English classes certainly weren't covering it. A good assignment for our kids would be for them to research the individuals and read the books by Washington and Dubois, compare and contrast and see who they think helped humans most. I did find it interesting that when I was searching for the dates of the "peace" prizes, that someone has spent A LOT of time on the WEB Dubois Wikipedia page and removed information and made him sound like a much better person than he actually was.
Thank you for this- i am sharing with friends with school age children and grandchildren.
Great review Moshe. Keep writing.
Thanks!
Not only is the author of "Stamped" pushing a questionable perspective, he has blatantly and falsely twisted the ideas of persons and disciplines to his own bias. For example, he claims that Samuel Morton is the father of American Anthropology. Not so. Morton was not even an anthropologist. Franz Boas is considered the father of American Anthropology. He also claims Boas was racist, although Boas was one of the earliest persons to assert, over and over, that there are no genetic or biological differences between person of so-called races except skin color. There is absolutely no basis for categorizing people into races. We must stop using the term "race." "Race" is a social construct that is not real. But that doesn't mean "racism" doesn't exist. Kendi's book does not enable young readers or anyone else combat RACISM!