3 ms·

Except he is doing what I'm claiming; but claiming that racism manifests itself differently (which, if it is his only position, I agree with him) isn't only wha

Except he is doing what I'm claiming; but claiming that racism manifests itself differently (which, if it is his only position, I agree with him) isn't only what he's doing, he's also implying that the racism of today is less pernicious, and leaving no scope for it to be equally as pernicious. If racism has changed form, shouldn't the responses to it also change form? The author also brings up racist viewpoints as merely "challenging the orthodoxy of race". The issue here is very simple; the author sees the tactics as self defeating because he doesn't agree with them, or because they don't want to accomplish his own aims - because they challenge the liberal orthodoxy, which he defends by mentioning several policies. To him, only policies can be challenged, and anything other than a policy doesn't count for institutional racism at all. The only exceptions he's willing to make are when racism is so bad that liberal approaches don't work so well - in Dr. King's instance. But I would contend that racism (and indeed sexism and classism) manifests itself in a much more overt and discreet way, but this only makes them categorically worse, just as the workplace example I used. I'm not entirely convinced he does understand what they want to do, having opted to go for a standard "they just want to control what we think" line rather than addressing their issues with the process as it actually stands. It's a bizarre article which hasn't looked into the history of the movement as it exists, and what its strengths and shortcomings are.

manfredo 8y ago
I'm struggling to understand how one would attempt to claim that the racism of today is equally or more pernicious than the racism of first and second wave antiracism movements? Is it your genuine belief that racism today exceeds that during 2nd wave antiracism? That people in 2018 suffer racism of equal magnitude as compared to poll taxes, explicit refusal to hire certain races, de-facto legal lynching, etc. ? Or first wave antiracism (abolitionism)? It seems incredibly difficult to make either of these claims. No doubt, any amount of racism is more than what is ideal. But to criticize the article for, "implying that the racism of today is less pernicious, and leaving no scope for it to be equally as pernicious" strikes me as non-sensical, since the overwhelming majority of people would agree that it is less pernicious.
- james-mcelwain 8y ago
  Liberals have a tendency to focus on legal frameworks and equality before the law while ignoring the material conditions and the lived experiences of black people. In some sense, it's trivially true that legal equality means things are "better", but there's plenty of empirical evidence that suggests that material gains won by the civil rights movement have regressed significantly. For example, in many places, schools are more segregated than they've been since the 60s [1]. Further, the housing crisis erased gains in black wealth back to levels of the 80s and 90s [2]. This is too large a subject to get into in an HN comment, but if you're curious, I'd highly suggest reading Michelle Alexander's excellent book The New Jim Crow[3], which focuses particularly on incarceration. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2018/3/5/17080218/school-segregation-getting-worse-data https://www.vox.com/2018/3/5/17080218/school-segregation-get... [2]: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Foreclosed.pdf https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... [3]: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/ctp/The_New_Jim_Crow.pdf https://www.vanderbilt.edu/ctp/The_New_Jim_Crow.pdf
  - manfredo 8y ago
    No doubt that the lived experiences of black people aren't entirely captured by legal changes. But the point remains: how can one reasonably make the claim that the lived experiences of black people between reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement, or before abolition of slavery are the same or better than today?
zepto 8y ago
The author spends a huge amount of space validating the new form racism takes and saying that it makes sense. He says nothing about the tactics not accomplishing his own aims, or that only policies can be challenged. He simply criticizes the way the attempt to change people’s psychology is being done as resembling a religious structure. Attempting to change people’s attitudes and psychology is fine. It’s also obvious that there is more than one approach to doing it, and that it’s likely that many approaches to a problem like this will be self defeating.

manfredo 8y ago

I'm struggling to understand how one would attempt to claim that the racism of today is equally or more pernicious than the racism of first and second wave antiracism movements? Is it your genuine belief that racism today exceeds that during 2nd wave antiracism? That people in 2018 suffer racism of equal magnitude as compared to poll taxes, explicit refusal to hire certain races, de-facto legal lynching, etc. ? Or first wave antiracism (abolitionism)? It seems incredibly difficult to make either of these claims. No doubt, any amount of racism is more than what is ideal. But to criticize the article for, "implying that the racism of today is less pernicious, and leaving no scope for it to be equally as pernicious" strikes me as non-sensical, since the overwhelming majority of people would agree that it is less pernicious.

james-mcelwain 8y ago
Liberals have a tendency to focus on legal frameworks and equality before the law while ignoring the material conditions and the lived experiences of black people. In some sense, it's trivially true that legal equality means things are "better", but there's plenty of empirical evidence that suggests that material gains won by the civil rights movement have regressed significantly. For example, in many places, schools are more segregated than they've been since the 60s [1]. Further, the housing crisis erased gains in black wealth back to levels of the 80s and 90s [2]. This is too large a subject to get into in an HN comment, but if you're curious, I'd highly suggest reading Michelle Alexander's excellent book The New Jim Crow[3], which focuses particularly on incarceration. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2018/3/5/17080218/school-segregation-getting-worse-data https://www.vox.com/2018/3/5/17080218/school-segregation-get... [2]: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Foreclosed.pdf https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... [3]: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/ctp/The_New_Jim_Crow.pdf https://www.vanderbilt.edu/ctp/The_New_Jim_Crow.pdf
- manfredo 8y ago
  No doubt that the lived experiences of black people aren't entirely captured by legal changes. But the point remains: how can one reasonably make the claim that the lived experiences of black people between reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement, or before abolition of slavery are the same or better than today?

zepto 8y ago

The author spends a huge amount of space validating the new form racism takes and saying that it makes sense. He says nothing about the tactics not accomplishing his own aims, or that only policies can be challenged. He simply criticizes the way the attempt to change people’s psychology is being done as resembling a religious structure. Attempting to change people’s attitudes and psychology is fine. It’s also obvious that there is more than one approach to doing it, and that it’s likely that many approaches to a problem like this will be self defeating.