16 ms·

It is important to note that this article was written by a black man, a contributing editor to The Atlantic. John McWhorter is not a MAGA hack. That being sai

by lisper 6y ago

It is important to note that this article was written by a black man, a contributing editor to The Atlantic. John McWhorter is not a MAGA hack. That being said... This article is the very definition of a straw man. Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques. On the other hand, a fair number of people (including myself) subscribe to the position that, although things are not nearly as bad as they have been in the past, there is still a latent undercurrent of actual racism in the U.S. which sometimes bubbles to the surface and manifests itself in various harmful ways, up to and including (but far from limited to) black people being systematically disenfranchised, and publicly tortured and killed by authorities, often with impunity. To people like me, straw-man arguments like the one in TFA (and F does not stand for Fine in this case) are offensive because I of course agree that the position being critiqued is risible. Whether or not it was the author's intent, some people will surely read it as saying, tacitly, there is no problem, and anyone who says there is a problem is being hysterical or otherwise detached from reality. Well, there is a problem, and there has been for hundreds of years. We have made a lot of progress towards solving this problem. But we have not yet solved fully solved it, and anyone who says that we have, particularly when they say it in such a condescending way, is part of the problem. [UPDATE] A lot of people are disputing my claim here. What no one has yet done is provide an actual reference to anyone going on the record to endorse the ten-point position that McWhorter calls "third-wave anti-racism." Lots of anecdotes. Zero data.

minikites 6y ago
>Whether or not it was the author's intent, some people will surely read it as saying, tacitly, there is no problem, and anyone who says there is a problem is being hysterical or otherwise detached from reality. I'm expecting 90% of the comments on this article to be some form of this. Many people think racism ended when we elected Obama.
- ziroshima 6y ago
  Some people may think that racism ended, but I don't think most do. In fact, I'd say this is a 'straw man', to quote the parent. I think the problem people have is seeing racism enacted to combat racism, which is just going to result in a feedback loop producing more racism, tribalism, and division.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Hmm. The current approach of "combating racism" (quotas, preferences, "white fragility", etc.) almost has to produce tribalism, which, since it's tribalism on the axis of race, will almost certainly produce more racism down the road. Once you put it that way, it seems almost inevitable.
  - minikites 6y ago
    Do you remember how many people got upset when a black man knelt for the national anthem at a football game? Lots of people definitely think racism is over.
beaner 6y ago
Surely statistics might help us resolve to what extent things like public torture and killing of black people by authorities is a problem (as distinct from police brutality against all people generally). What do the statistics say? Edit: This comment went from +7 to -1 in a matter of a page refresh. HN should be cognizant of brigading on threads like this. But moreso, the people doing it should also ask themselves why, especially on such a scientific and curious forum, they think the simple asking of certain questions should be so vehemently and anonymously punished.
- minikites 6y ago
  What leads you to believe the statistics are gathered and reported accurately?
  - beaner 6y ago
    Literal death does not tend to be misreported in the first world.
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      I'd imagine there's a large number of things missing from the record though
    - e40 6y ago
      It has been widely reported that causes due to police interactions are not tracked on a national level.
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      It's quite hard to come up with reliable statistics for police killings in the US. It's not that deaths aren't counted, it's that they're misclassified. > Feldman used data from the Guardian’s 2015 investigation into police killings, The Counted, and compared it with data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). That dataset, which is kept by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was found to have misclassified 55.2% of all police killings, with the errors occurring disproportionately in low-income jurisdictions. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/11/police-killings-counted-harvard-study https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/11/police-killi...
briane80 6y ago
"black people being systematically disenfranchised, and publicly tortured and killed by authorities, often with impunity" And it's ridiculous statements like this that keep fanning the racial tensions. 1) Please show the data - if you even took time to review police killings it is social class that is the biggest factor not race. In fact as a percentage white people of lower income status are killed more often than black people during police encounters. You can look this data up for yourself it is widely available. 2) Please show how black people are disenfranchised more than another racial group when you adjust for other things such as location and class. 3) Explain how systemic racism exists when Asians and Jewish ethnicites outperform the supposed supremacist white group on all measures.
- lisper 6y ago
  > Please show the data Seriously? Have you not been keeping up with current events? Have you heard of George Floyd? The attempts by the Trump administration to overturn the 2020 election?
  - beaner 6y ago
    Yes seriously. If the data show something else then maybe your reaction isn't actually justified.
  - throwfaraway987 6y ago
    Have you heard of Tony Timpa? He was murdered by the Dallas police in the same fashion as George Floyd. Great body cam footage capturing them laughing at him as he begged for his life and screamed that he couldn't breathe. No consequences for the police officers involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Police_Department#Killing_of_Tony_Timpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Police_Department#Killi... How about Daniel Shaver? Gunned down in cold blood. Again, incredible body cam footage of him being made to crawl on the ground, sobbing and terrified, before being shot. His murderer, Officer Philip Brailsford, was acquitted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver This affects all races. Unfortunately it isn't political useful to frame it that way. Almost no one has heard of these two men because they were white. Does that seem problematic to you?
stevenwoo 6y ago
His arguments read exactly the same as Clarence Thomas’ on race and African Americans - to paraphrase a recent biography “that life is too easy for them and we are coddling them”.
- caturopath 6y ago
  Can you provide a few McWhorter quotes to that effect? Thanks!
  - edbob 6y ago
    Some Clarence Thomas quotes would be nice too, preferably with context.
    - stevenwoo 6y ago
      I provided a link to the biography writer's website in an adjacent comment. It was released in 2019. The author said something close to what I wrote in a paragraph or two and I rejected it, then over the course of an hour long interview on the radio he convinced me. YMMV. The full book reference 700 writings by Clarence Thomas.
  - stevenwoo 6y ago
    I heard Corey Robin interviewed on the radio when he released The Enigma of Clarence Thomas. I could not find that link but here is the author's website. https://coreyrobin.com/enigma/ https://coreyrobin.com/enigma/ I was honestly gobsmacked by Robin's revelations, at first unbelieving, then acceptance after the words from Thomas that Robin had on command to back his thesis - it explains Thomas' rulings like nothing else. The New York Times Book Review quote matches my reaction exactly after listening to the author.
- war1025 6y ago
  PBS did a great documentary on Clarence Thomas recently. Was interesting to see him portrayed as a person and not just the farce that media seems to usually make him out to be. [1] https://www.pbs.org/show/created-equal-clarence-thomas-his-own-words/ https://www.pbs.org/show/created-equal-clarence-thomas-his-o...
newacct583 6y ago
I think that's about right. And there's a more market-based take on this: McWhorter politics audience is swelling at the moment and he's trying to take advantage. There are a lot of broadly intellectual para-conservatives right now feeling cast out of the conventional conservative media environment (occupied as it is with fighting a civil war between the MAGA insurgents and traditional republicans). This site, in particular, is absolutely filled with them. And a message like this, aimed squarely at the woke left and requiring no compromise on the part of a conservative reader, is pure mana for that audience. The Greenwald essay that spiked here (briefly) yesterday is in the same genre. Basically: straw men arguments aimed at the seemingly ascendant left are going to be big business around here for the next few years. [1] To be fair: he's also a professional linguist with a real day job as a professor at Columbia. Go find and read his Power of Babel book at some point, it's great.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Two passages jumped out at me as relevant not just generally, but potentially valuable to wokeists here at HN. >Black people are a conglomeration of disparate individuals. “Black culture” is code for “pathological, primitive ghetto people.” But don’t expect black people to assimilate to “white” social norms because black people have a culture of their own. >I write this viscerally driven by the fact that all of this supposed wisdom is founded in an ideology under which white people calling themselves our _saviors_ make black people look like the dumbest, weakest, most self-indulgent human beings in the history of our species, and teach black people to revel in that status and cherish it as making us special. >And a message like this, aimed squarely at the woke left and requiring no compromise on the part of a conservative reader, is pure mana for that audience Without knowing my identity, which compromises am I missing when I read this article?
  - runako 6y ago
    > “Black culture” is code for “pathological, primitive ghetto people.” That's the dumbest, most offensive thing I've read in quite a while. Perhaps among a certain set of people that is true (call those people "racists" as shorthand). But as an actual Black person, it's ridiculously offensive to define "Black culture" that way. > white people calling themselves our _saviors_ make black people look like the dumbest, weakest, most self-indulgent human beings in the history of our species This belongs to a category of arguments that reset time to zero as the sentence is being written. As such, it's almost beneath rebuttal. (If you require rebuttal, any child who has lost her milk teeth can provide sufficient rebuttal.) > which compromises am I missing when I read this article? The compromise they do not have to make is that of realizing that the claptrap they read (some of which you quoted) is pandering to them and their infantile understanding of the United States.
peytn 6y ago
> But we have not yet solved fully solved it, and anyone who says that we have, particularly when they say it in such a condescending way, is part of the problem. I just finished reading this article in its entirety, and I think I might’ve missed this part. My impression was that the author is describing a proselytizing ideology that happens to be based on skin color and draws legitimacy from historical perfidies. Actual progress on racism seemed to me to be orthogonal to what the author was talking about.
- lisper 6y ago
  Yes, I read the whole article. And yes, I agree that "Actual progress on racism [is] orthogonal to what the author was talking about." But that's not what I'm critiquing. I'm critiquing his premise, that this thing he calls "third wave anti-racism" and whose characteristics he describes in his ten-point characterization is actually representative of the views of people who are concerned about racism today. I don't believe they are. They are certainly not representative of my views or of anyone I know. And he doesn't actually cite any sources. He just states it as if all this were common knowledge and beyond reasonable dispute. Well, I dispute it.
  - peytn 6y ago
    I see. I’m on a college campus in the United States right now, and I can confirm what he describes exists here exactly as he describes it. There may be a generational or geographical gap between our experiences.
    - lisper 6y ago
      OK, I'll take your word for it. But I have a hard time imagining what that experience could even look like. I mean, do people go around quizzing each other on their anti-racist credentials? In my world, this doesn't even come up in day-to-day conversation. The only reason it's on my radar screen at all is that I wrote a blog post about it a few months ago that ended up blowing up in my face.
      - 6y ago
macinjosh 6y ago
> Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques. Have you been on Twitter or a college campus lately? There absolutely are people who believe those things to their core. I have spoken to many people who subscribe to those positions both online and off. I am not saying we should throw the baby out with the bathwater but disregarding the extremists in the anti-racism movement is just burying your head in the sand.
- lisper 6y ago
  > Have you been on Twitter or a college campus lately? No. I live in a bubble. And no, I am not being facetious. I really have not been to a college campus for a long time, and I really don't read Twitter. Nonetheless... > There absolutely are people who believe those things to their core. I have a very hard time believing this. Can you point me to some evidence on the record that is longer than 140 characters?
  - macinjosh 6y ago
    Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk
    - runako 6y ago
      Fair warning: the creator of that video has a dog in this fight. To be fair, he's not exactly trying to come across as impartial. But this might not be the best source for someone trying to learn about this issue.
      - lisper 6y ago
        Well, I started watching this, but I stopped after "Evergreen was the most experimental of experimental colleges." I don't see how an anecdote from a setting like that could possibly inform a discussion of what is and isn't a widely held view in today's society.
  - hn8788 6y ago
readtfa 6y ago
You obviously didn't read the article if you think it's a straw man. He quotes Ibrahim Kendi, funded by Jack Dorsey as an exemplar of the new faith. If Dorsey and Kendi aren't mainstream, just to start, I don't know what is. I'm so tired of getting gaslit about this. My opinion on neoracism is the reason I am posting with a throwaway. Thank you John Worter for helping to rebrand so-called "Antiracism" to what it really is. Neoracism.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  I see 10 tenets that are extremely disagreeable posed as a mainstream ideology, and as far as I can tell, he just made them up. So he can fuck off, imo. I don't especially like Kendi. Here's what he says about kendi in the article though. > Ibram X. Kendi has written a book on how to raise antiracist children called Antiracist Baby. ... That's it. He says he wrote a book called Antiracist Baby. That name drop does not do anything to strengthen his position. Unless I'm missing something there's not even a cherry picked quote out of context. It's just implied to self-evidently support his position.
  - slowmovintarget 6y ago
    At work, there are emails going around that list all of those tenets. How to apologize, how one should not speak unless one is "appropriately diverse," how one should believe in their own guilt or victim-hood. This email (unofficial) has the title "How to Be Antiracist." The only thing McWhorter did was to reorder the bullets, putting some next to each other. None of those are made up. The very next sentences after your quote discusses the book. The next paragraph also says this: > Talking of Antiracist Baby, I am especially dismayed at the idea of this indoctrination infecting my daughters’ sense of self. I can’t always be with them, and this anti-humanist ideology may seep into their school curriculum. I shudder at the thought: teachers with eyes shining at the prospect of showing their antiracism by teaching my daughters that they are poster children rather than individuals.
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      > This email (unofficial) has the title "How to Be Antiracist." The only thing McWhorter did was to reorder the bullets, putting some next to each other. > None of those are made up. By definition they are made up. The question is by whom. I cannot find these tenets by googling them. The first link to "third wave antiracist tenets" is this very article. The fact that someone sent you an email is pretty irrelevant, and frankly dubious. I'm open to being proven wrong, but if these aren't published by a noteworthy source, they're utterly irrelevant. I don't like Kendi. I think his work is opportunistic and stuck in semantics. But I don't think he's going to write dumb shit like what the author anchors everyone on baselessly. And even if he did, I feel confident that 99% of americans would say they're not accurate portrayals of their views. edit: on a reread, it sounds like you're saying there's just a separate email with different content. Just because this author uses the words "antiracist" doesn't mean his portrayal of another person's portrayal of the word are the same, or that either are salient. > The very next sentences after your quote discusses the book. The next paragraph also says this: The quote you provided contains literally nothing from the book, just him doubling down that he doesn't like it.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> But we have not yet solved fully solved it, and anyone who says that we have... McWhorter doesn't say that we have solved it. In fact, in the linked essay he outright says that he supports protesting for civil rights in general and he approves of aspects of the BLM movement.
pfortuny 6y ago
The mere fact that you say "anyone ... is part of the problem" discredits your reasoning. People are not problems: ideas might be. If you treat people as problems, then you are not solving anyone.
cccc4alll 6y ago
The lower classes fight amongst themselves, while the establishment gets richer every second. Ask yourself why you even think about these trivial issues like who is racist? Ask yourself why the establishment media doesn’t talk about who owns and controls the vast wealth in this country? Which has more impact and can benefit people of all races.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  The British pulled the same trick in India for centuries. Turns out that it’s easier to rule a nation when you put its citizens against each other.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Some have theorized along this line by suggesting that the id politics movement switched into overdrive after Occupy Wall Street. Although they had different analyses, both the left and the free market right were aligned against crony capitalism.
- feoren 6y ago
  Violent mobs fighting for the right to lynch black people, exterminate Jews, and separate Mexican infants from their mothers is not a "trivial issue".
baggy_trough 6y ago
The first sentence of your comment indicates that you might be among the Elect.
asitov 6y ago
It's not important to note. Kind of the POINT.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Yes, but otherwise the enlightened audience here might prejudicially dismiss McWhorter as a "MAGA hack".
asitov 6y ago
It's not important to note. Kind of the point.
Digory 6y ago
Then, with respect, you are not listening to and understanding the people to the left of you. They deny that there is a mere undercurrent of latent intentional bigotry by those in power (racism). Rather, they affirm that America is a system of power and social relations that keep the underclass just as effectively subjugated as slavery, without the need for intentional bigotry. And they intend to undo it. George Washington is not being removed from school names because there is a tail problem with bigotry that we’ve made progress on. They believe they must deny Washington any place of honor, so that BIPOC children feel safe enough to succeed. Of course we have not “solved racism.” But it is not a straw man to point out the false religion of the iconoclasts claiming to have a solution.
- lisper 6y ago
  Reference(s)?
  - manfredo 6y ago
    The article in question provides several examples of public figures making these points. I've personally encountered people and organizations that . Several who, for instance, decried white flight on one hand but on the other hand criticized whites (and Asians) moving into poor neighborhoods in San Francisco. One company I worked at set up a system of reserving headcount specifically for underrepresented demographics, while simultaneously declared that any notion that the company extended preferential treatment to said groups was hateful and not acceptable. I think these people are well-intentioned but are too scared to confront controversy or navigate nuance in their views. So they resort to this sort of contradiction to try and avoid it.
  - omginternets 6y ago
    I don't see the point. You're already ignoring the ones FTA.
    - lisper 6y ago
      There are two references in the TFA. Both of them are books. I haven't read them, so I will concede that these two books endorse the point of view being described. However, McWhorter makes the claim that third-wave racism is mainstream. The existence of two books endorsing a point of view is not evidence that this point of view is mainstream, or even widespread. If it were, then flat-eartherism would be mainstream.
ajuc 6y ago
> This article is the very definition of a straw man. Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques. I've seen people argue every point listed there. Not at the same time, but still. > We have made a lot of progress towards solving this problem. But we have not yet solved fully solved it Sure. There's a lot of racism to fight. But that doesn't mean we should just ignore people pushing bullshit under antiracism banners. > and anyone who says that we have, particularly when they say it in such a condescending way, is part of the problem. Going too far with antiracism is possible and just as harmful. If you go far enough you make young people think all antiracism is a joke. Then they just stop thinking of racism as something bad in general. In some countries this point isn't far in the future. We can argue where the line is (for me the concept of "cultural appropriation" is already absurd enough), but the fact that there is a line should be pretty obvious.
xibalba 6y ago
> very definition of a straw man Please elaborate and cite. You dismiss the entire article (i.e. the subject of discussion) with the wave of a hand before diving into your own battle against straw men. For instance: > publicly tortured and killed by authorities In 2016, 266 black people were killed by police in the U.S. [1] In 2020, that value is estimated to be 233 [2]. That is out of 46 million black people in the U.S., or approximately 0.0006%. No data available on "public torture". While I would agree that any death at the hands of police is unfortunate (though NOT unavoidable), I think most reasonable people would agree that 0.0006% is hardly representative of a widespread or systemic issue that typifies the policing of black people. > there is no problem Another straw man. McWhorter states explicitly: > [This article] is not an argument against protest > I am calling for [black people] to be treated with true dignity > I am not arguing against the basic premises of Black Lives Matter [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/... [2] https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
- ardy42 6y ago
  > In 2016, 266 black people were killed by police in the U.S. [1] In 2020, that value is estimated to be 233 [2]. That is out of 46 million black people in the U.S., or approximately 0.0006%. No data available on "public torture". While I would agree that any death at the hands of police is unfortunate (though NOT unavoidable), I think most reasonable people would agree that 0.0006% is hardly representative of a widespread or systemic issue that typifies the policing of black people. I see a few flaws in your argument. 1. Death statistics likely do not represent the entire problem, but rather the tip of the iceberg. Deaths/murders are rare overall, but hard to hide. 2. Your 0.0006% is calculated in a way to give one of the smallest possible magnitudes, and doesn't really offer any useful comparison. You can do similar to minimize any issue. If you wanted to make an argument against there being a systemic issue here, you really ought to compare per-capita black deaths-by-police to per-capita white deaths-by police or something. This paper [1] (first result of my Google search) give such a comparison and states: > The highest levels of inequality in mortality risk [from police use of force] are experienced by black men. Black men are about 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police over the life course than are white men. Black women are about 1.4 times more likely to be killed by police than are white women. [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793 https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
joshuawright11 6y ago
FWIW the author wrote a post attempting to defend his position as not a straw man https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/is-the-elect-a-mere-collection-of?r=3vwvr&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=twitter https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/is-the-elect-a-mere-col...
stncls 6y ago
Indeed the strawman is so huge it is tempting to translate the purported 10-tenet list into what reasonable people may actually believe. > 1. When black people say you have insulted them, apologize with profound sincerity and guilt. But don’t put black people in a position where you expect them to forgive you. Yeah, indeed if anyone feels insulted it's quite a natural first reaction to apologize. On the other hand, unless you're having a bad day, try to have a thick skin yourself. > 2. “Black culture” is code for “pathological, primitive ghetto people.” But don’t expect black people to assimilate to “white” social norms. This one... wtf? And no, I don't expect anyone to pretend they're white. > 3. Silence about racism is violence. But elevate the voices of the oppressed over your own. So is the author arguing that silence about racism is a good thing then? And we generally want expert voices elevated on specific topics. I do think many black people know quite a bit about experiencing racism. > 4. You must strive eternally to understand the experiences of black people. But you can never understand what it is to be black, and if you think you do you’re a racist. Replace black by science and racist by stupid. Not so illogical then, is it? > 5. Show interest in multiculturalism. But do not culturally appropriate. Oh come on. All people ask is things like: don't do blackface, it's dumb. Like dressing up as an SS. Fully legal, as it should be, but really dumb. > 6. [...] But seek to have black friends. If you don’t have any, you’re a racist. (facepalm) I'll stop here.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Point 2 is almost surely a reference to a famous incident where the African-American History Museum published a chart which identified things like hard work, self-reliance, and planning for the future as aspects of "white culture". (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article244309587.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/artic...)
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    That's a misleading summary. The graphic defined ideas like rugged individualism and Protestant work ethic. Saying self reliance is part of rugged individualism doesn't mean every other philosophy opposes it.
- 6y ago
omginternets 6y ago
>Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques. That's demonstrably false. Ibram X. Kendi is the most notorious counterexample. A cursory google search will reveal activist groups organized against these principles. And these are just the ones who explicitly subscribe to the position.
cltby 6y ago
> This article is the very definition of a straw man. Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques. The article critiques a position that consists of multiple beliefs. While it is true that ~nobody subscribes to all of them, each individual belief is very well-represented amongst the "anti-racists." As a consequence, to anyone under attack by a Twitter mob, the situation looks exactly as McWhorter describes: you're being hit from all directions by the entire span of mutually contradictory nonsense.
c06n 6y ago
To update you with an actual source on some of the points, you can start with Robin DiAngelo's book "White Fragility". Most of the points are argued in the book. DiAngelo's books have been many weeks on the NYT's best seller lists. She sells her diversity training courses to many Fortune 500 companies and is held in high regards in progressive circles. You can get a quick overview of the book's ideas on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Fragility#Synopsis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Fragility#Synopsis). It links also an interesting article discussing the book (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/19/the-fight-to-redefine-racism https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/19/the-fight-to-r...). Quote from the article: > Unlike Kendi, who boldly defines racism, DiAngelo is endlessly deferential--for her, racism is basically whatever any person of color thinks it is. In the story she tells about the world, she and her fellow white people have all the power, and therefore all the responsibility to do the gruelling but transformative spiritual work she calls for. The story makes white people seem like flawed, complicated characters; by comparison, people of color seem good, wise, and perhaps rather simple. If you look a little bit, you will find many stories that fit into the 10 points. One of my favorite examples is how an (Asian American) reporter got fired for quoting from an interview from an African American man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Fang#The_Intercept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Fang#The_Intercept). > In June 2020, Fang was accused of racism by Akela Lacy, a colleague at The Intercept. This occurred after Fang shared a Martin Luther King Jr. quote about remaining non-violent and tweeted out an interview in which a black man at a George Floyd protest expressed concern about black-on-black crime. The best part of the story? The person who set of the Twitter storm to get Fang fired, then a colleague of Lee Fang at the Intercept, is (to my knowledge) a white woman pretending to be Black.
- lisper 6y ago
  > you will find many stories that fit into the 10 points I don't doubt that. In a nation of 300+ million you can find someone who believes just about anything. But it's still a very long way from there to the conclusions that the conjunction of those ten points is a mainstream point of view, which is what McWhorter claims. Nonetheless, thanks for the references and the considered response.
  - 6y ago
screye 6y ago
I return your claim of an infamous intellectual fallacy with another. The 'Motte-and_bailey'. IE. A large sub-section of the community advances this exact strawman, while retreating to a conventionally accepted meaning of racism when truly challenged. I'll address the biggest names that have risen during this new movement. Kendi's and DiAngelo's books are written exactly as McWhorter puts it. Coates's is more heartfelt, but ends on an incredibly nihilistic note. Kendi and DiAngelo are the Beyonce and JayZ of the diversity training world. They are the ones moving indefensible goal posts. The common reply to my claims is that Kendi and DeAngelo are media faces and that 'real' academics have more principled approaches. However, these same academics fall in line when the media faces conjure a mob movement without a word of dissent. Any critics are immediately labelled as conservative/racist and bigots. Part of the reason John can say the things he can, is because he is a black academic and has established a long history of goodwill towards the black community in the US. Else, he would have been character assassinated twice over. > anyone who says that we have, particularly when they say it in such a condescending way, is part of the problem. Aren't you strawmanning John now? He never claims that racism is over. He has also seen every institution cover in fear towards this new prescriptive dogma without so much as whimper. He gets talked down to and is increasingly put under greater scrutiny than his intellectual opposition. I find it entirely fair that his tone is colored with condescension.
- lisper 6y ago
  > Aren't you strawmanning John now? Probably. I have a hard time remaining completely dispassionate about this.
  - screye 6y ago
    I know that expectations are different between 1st and 3rd world nations. But, here goes nothing. Back home in India, people frequently die on the streets and 50% of the children are malnourished. It is odd to see Americans get passionate to the point refusing to engage with the opposition on issues. Especially when the problems do not seem as major when put in perspective with the problems facing 3rd world nationals. I live in an international community house and the difference between European and American progressives is quite stark. The Europeans are economically quite left and socially progressive, but cannot empathize with the American culture war at all. Macron and Le Pen voters can enjoy a drink together. This new anti-racism movement specifically stumps most of us non-Americans, many of whom are minorities and from ultra-liberal communities ourselves. Engaging sincerely with someone in opposition reveals an incredibly amount of nuance that most difficult issues have. Prescriptive politics of coercion is often brought down by blind spots that could have been avoided had they only been less pigheaded about it.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> John McWhorter is not a MAGA hack. From reading the piece, he seems more of a Friedman/Brooks hack (much more common in the mainstream media), but still a hack. > This article is the very definition of a straw man. Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques. McWhorter seems to be really keen (not just in this piece) on adapting the old and problematic waves of feminism model and applying it, badly and without much basis, to “antiracism”. > What no one has yet done is provide an actual reference to anyone going on the record to endorse the ten-point position that McWhorter calls "third-wave anti-racism." I doubt you could find much support for people supporting any of them (except maybe #3, which is perfectly internally consistent without even superficial contradiction, and #10, in which the implication of contradiction is based entirely in the fallacy of division, like, come to think of it, much racism.) Most of them have superficial resemblance to things people actually believe, but have been subtly twisted to make strawmen. As one example, McWhorter’s number 2 is: > Black people are a conglomeration of disparate individuals. “Black culture” is code for “pathological, primitive ghetto people.” But don’t expect black people to assimilate to “white” social norms because black people have a culture of their own. An actual real thing many antiracists believe is: > Black people are a conglomeration of disparate individuals. Reference to a singular “Black culture” is code for “pathological, primitive ghetto people.” But don’t expect black people to assimilate to “white” social norms because black people have cultures of their own. The differences are subtle in terms of the change in words, but gigantic in terms of change of meaning.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mint2 6y ago
I have the same point view as you. Can someone show non-fringe like credible examples of any of the 10 points? And it seems obvious that even if people magically had no more racists thoughts or decisions starting in 2021, as if a side effect of COVID was ending racist beliefs, the intergenerational effects would mean the effects of racism would continually disadvantage large swathes of people. As a society, we should work to reduce the impact of past mistakes, should we not?
pcstl 6y ago
If you want data, you need to specify what standard of evidence would be enough for you to consider that there actually are people who hold this position. For instance, you won't find anyone simply stating without context to hold these 10 positions. If you're expecting that, you wouldn't find it no matter how many people actually held those opinions. Another issue is that any data people _actually_ do bring you can dismiss as "non-representative", as you have not set your standards of evidence. For instance, if you want scholarly research proving X% of Americans think so and so, you won't find any, for a plethora of reasons. That does not mean that X% of Americans don't think so and so. I do believe your argument is coherent, and that McWhorter might be exaggerating and even strawmanning a bit - but if you want data, you need to specify in advance what's the standard of evidence you'll accept and people can then determine whether that's a reasonable standard.
- lisper 6y ago
  > what standard of evidence would be enough for you Well, I'll give you an example from a different but related issue: the question of whether the Confederate states seceded in order to defend slavery. Some people deny this, claiming that it was more about "states rights" or "heritage" or something like that. So here are some quotes from the Declaration of Causes of the Seceding States [1]: "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization." "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." "She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time." "...the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations..." Then in the Bill of Rights of the Confederate Constitution [2] we read: "4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." So that seems pretty clear to me. When people mean something, they generally say it plainly. --- [1] https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... [2] https://usconstitution.net/csa.html https://usconstitution.net/csa.html

by lisper 6y ago

minikites 6y ago

>Whether or not it was the author's intent, some people will surely read it as saying, tacitly, there is no problem, and anyone who says there is a problem is being hysterical or otherwise detached from reality. I'm expecting 90% of the comments on this article to be some form of this. Many people think racism ended when we elected Obama.

ziroshima 6y ago
Some people may think that racism ended, but I don't think most do. In fact, I'd say this is a 'straw man', to quote the parent. I think the problem people have is seeing racism enacted to combat racism, which is just going to result in a feedback loop producing more racism, tribalism, and division.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Hmm. The current approach of "combating racism" (quotas, preferences, "white fragility", etc.) almost has to produce tribalism, which, since it's tribalism on the axis of race, will almost certainly produce more racism down the road. Once you put it that way, it seems almost inevitable.
- minikites 6y ago
  Do you remember how many people got upset when a black man knelt for the national anthem at a football game? Lots of people definitely think racism is over.

beaner 6y ago

Surely statistics might help us resolve to what extent things like public torture and killing of black people by authorities is a problem (as distinct from police brutality against all people generally). What do the statistics say? Edit: This comment went from +7 to -1 in a matter of a page refresh. HN should be cognizant of brigading on threads like this. But moreso, the people doing it should also ask themselves why, especially on such a scientific and curious forum, they think the simple asking of certain questions should be so vehemently and anonymously punished.

minikites 6y ago
What leads you to believe the statistics are gathered and reported accurately?
- beaner 6y ago
  Literal death does not tend to be misreported in the first world.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    I'd imagine there's a large number of things missing from the record though
  - e40 6y ago
    It has been widely reported that causes due to police interactions are not tracked on a national level.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    It's quite hard to come up with reliable statistics for police killings in the US. It's not that deaths aren't counted, it's that they're misclassified. > Feldman used data from the Guardian’s 2015 investigation into police killings, The Counted, and compared it with data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). That dataset, which is kept by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was found to have misclassified 55.2% of all police killings, with the errors occurring disproportionately in low-income jurisdictions. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/11/police-killings-counted-harvard-study https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/11/police-killi...

briane80 6y ago

"black people being systematically disenfranchised, and publicly tortured and killed by authorities, often with impunity" And it's ridiculous statements like this that keep fanning the racial tensions. 1) Please show the data - if you even took time to review police killings it is social class that is the biggest factor not race. In fact as a percentage white people of lower income status are killed more often than black people during police encounters. You can look this data up for yourself it is widely available. 2) Please show how black people are disenfranchised more than another racial group when you adjust for other things such as location and class. 3) Explain how systemic racism exists when Asians and Jewish ethnicites outperform the supposed supremacist white group on all measures.

lisper 6y ago
> Please show the data Seriously? Have you not been keeping up with current events? Have you heard of George Floyd? The attempts by the Trump administration to overturn the 2020 election?
- beaner 6y ago
  Yes seriously. If the data show something else then maybe your reaction isn't actually justified.
- throwfaraway987 6y ago
  Have you heard of Tony Timpa? He was murdered by the Dallas police in the same fashion as George Floyd. Great body cam footage capturing them laughing at him as he begged for his life and screamed that he couldn't breathe. No consequences for the police officers involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Police_Department#Killing_of_Tony_Timpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Police_Department#Killi... How about Daniel Shaver? Gunned down in cold blood. Again, incredible body cam footage of him being made to crawl on the ground, sobbing and terrified, before being shot. His murderer, Officer Philip Brailsford, was acquitted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver This affects all races. Unfortunately it isn't political useful to frame it that way. Almost no one has heard of these two men because they were white. Does that seem problematic to you?

stevenwoo 6y ago

His arguments read exactly the same as Clarence Thomas’ on race and African Americans - to paraphrase a recent biography “that life is too easy for them and we are coddling them”.

caturopath 6y ago
Can you provide a few McWhorter quotes to that effect? Thanks!
- edbob 6y ago
  Some Clarence Thomas quotes would be nice too, preferably with context.
  - stevenwoo 6y ago
    I provided a link to the biography writer's website in an adjacent comment. It was released in 2019. The author said something close to what I wrote in a paragraph or two and I rejected it, then over the course of an hour long interview on the radio he convinced me. YMMV. The full book reference 700 writings by Clarence Thomas.
- stevenwoo 6y ago
  I heard Corey Robin interviewed on the radio when he released The Enigma of Clarence Thomas. I could not find that link but here is the author's website. https://coreyrobin.com/enigma/ https://coreyrobin.com/enigma/ I was honestly gobsmacked by Robin's revelations, at first unbelieving, then acceptance after the words from Thomas that Robin had on command to back his thesis - it explains Thomas' rulings like nothing else. The New York Times Book Review quote matches my reaction exactly after listening to the author.
war1025 6y ago
PBS did a great documentary on Clarence Thomas recently. Was interesting to see him portrayed as a person and not just the farce that media seems to usually make him out to be. [1] https://www.pbs.org/show/created-equal-clarence-thomas-his-own-words/ https://www.pbs.org/show/created-equal-clarence-thomas-his-o...

newacct583 6y ago

I think that's about right. And there's a more market-based take on this: McWhorter politics audience is swelling at the moment and he's trying to take advantage. There are a lot of broadly intellectual para-conservatives right now feeling cast out of the conventional conservative media environment (occupied as it is with fighting a civil war between the MAGA insurgents and traditional republicans). This site, in particular, is absolutely filled with them. And a message like this, aimed squarely at the woke left and requiring no compromise on the part of a conservative reader, is pure mana for that audience. The Greenwald essay that spiked here (briefly) yesterday is in the same genre. Basically: straw men arguments aimed at the seemingly ascendant left are going to be big business around here for the next few years. [1] To be fair: he's also a professional linguist with a real day job as a professor at Columbia. Go find and read his Power of Babel book at some point, it's great.

aww_dang 6y ago
Two passages jumped out at me as relevant not just generally, but potentially valuable to wokeists here at HN. >Black people are a conglomeration of disparate individuals. “Black culture” is code for “pathological, primitive ghetto people.” But don’t expect black people to assimilate to “white” social norms because black people have a culture of their own. >I write this viscerally driven by the fact that all of this supposed wisdom is founded in an ideology under which white people calling themselves our _saviors_ make black people look like the dumbest, weakest, most self-indulgent human beings in the history of our species, and teach black people to revel in that status and cherish it as making us special. >And a message like this, aimed squarely at the woke left and requiring no compromise on the part of a conservative reader, is pure mana for that audience Without knowing my identity, which compromises am I missing when I read this article?
- runako 6y ago
  > “Black culture” is code for “pathological, primitive ghetto people.” That's the dumbest, most offensive thing I've read in quite a while. Perhaps among a certain set of people that is true (call those people "racists" as shorthand). But as an actual Black person, it's ridiculously offensive to define "Black culture" that way. > white people calling themselves our _saviors_ make black people look like the dumbest, weakest, most self-indulgent human beings in the history of our species This belongs to a category of arguments that reset time to zero as the sentence is being written. As such, it's almost beneath rebuttal. (If you require rebuttal, any child who has lost her milk teeth can provide sufficient rebuttal.) > which compromises am I missing when I read this article? The compromise they do not have to make is that of realizing that the claptrap they read (some of which you quoted) is pandering to them and their infantile understanding of the United States.

peytn 6y ago

> But we have not yet solved fully solved it, and anyone who says that we have, particularly when they say it in such a condescending way, is part of the problem. I just finished reading this article in its entirety, and I think I might’ve missed this part. My impression was that the author is describing a proselytizing ideology that happens to be based on skin color and draws legitimacy from historical perfidies. Actual progress on racism seemed to me to be orthogonal to what the author was talking about.

lisper 6y ago
Yes, I read the whole article. And yes, I agree that "Actual progress on racism [is] orthogonal to what the author was talking about." But that's not what I'm critiquing. I'm critiquing his premise, that this thing he calls "third wave anti-racism" and whose characteristics he describes in his ten-point characterization is actually representative of the views of people who are concerned about racism today. I don't believe they are. They are certainly not representative of my views or of anyone I know. And he doesn't actually cite any sources. He just states it as if all this were common knowledge and beyond reasonable dispute. Well, I dispute it.
- peytn 6y ago
  I see. I’m on a college campus in the United States right now, and I can confirm what he describes exists here exactly as he describes it. There may be a generational or geographical gap between our experiences.
  - lisper 6y ago
    OK, I'll take your word for it. But I have a hard time imagining what that experience could even look like. I mean, do people go around quizzing each other on their anti-racist credentials? In my world, this doesn't even come up in day-to-day conversation. The only reason it's on my radar screen at all is that I wrote a blog post about it a few months ago that ended up blowing up in my face.
    - 6y ago

macinjosh 6y ago

> Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques. Have you been on Twitter or a college campus lately? There absolutely are people who believe those things to their core. I have spoken to many people who subscribe to those positions both online and off. I am not saying we should throw the baby out with the bathwater but disregarding the extremists in the anti-racism movement is just burying your head in the sand.

lisper 6y ago
> Have you been on Twitter or a college campus lately? No. I live in a bubble. And no, I am not being facetious. I really have not been to a college campus for a long time, and I really don't read Twitter. Nonetheless... > There absolutely are people who believe those things to their core. I have a very hard time believing this. Can you point me to some evidence on the record that is longer than 140 characters?
- macinjosh 6y ago
  Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk
  - runako 6y ago
    Fair warning: the creator of that video has a dog in this fight. To be fair, he's not exactly trying to come across as impartial. But this might not be the best source for someone trying to learn about this issue.
    - lisper 6y ago
      Well, I started watching this, but I stopped after "Evergreen was the most experimental of experimental colleges." I don't see how an anecdote from a setting like that could possibly inform a discussion of what is and isn't a widely held view in today's society.
- hn8788 6y ago

readtfa 6y ago

You obviously didn't read the article if you think it's a straw man. He quotes Ibrahim Kendi, funded by Jack Dorsey as an exemplar of the new faith. If Dorsey and Kendi aren't mainstream, just to start, I don't know what is. I'm so tired of getting gaslit about this. My opinion on neoracism is the reason I am posting with a throwaway. Thank you John Worter for helping to rebrand so-called "Antiracism" to what it really is. Neoracism.

klmadfejno 6y ago
I see 10 tenets that are extremely disagreeable posed as a mainstream ideology, and as far as I can tell, he just made them up. So he can fuck off, imo. I don't especially like Kendi. Here's what he says about kendi in the article though. > Ibram X. Kendi has written a book on how to raise antiracist children called Antiracist Baby. ... That's it. He says he wrote a book called Antiracist Baby. That name drop does not do anything to strengthen his position. Unless I'm missing something there's not even a cherry picked quote out of context. It's just implied to self-evidently support his position.
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  At work, there are emails going around that list all of those tenets. How to apologize, how one should not speak unless one is "appropriately diverse," how one should believe in their own guilt or victim-hood. This email (unofficial) has the title "How to Be Antiracist." The only thing McWhorter did was to reorder the bullets, putting some next to each other. None of those are made up. The very next sentences after your quote discusses the book. The next paragraph also says this: > Talking of Antiracist Baby, I am especially dismayed at the idea of this indoctrination infecting my daughters’ sense of self. I can’t always be with them, and this anti-humanist ideology may seep into their school curriculum. I shudder at the thought: teachers with eyes shining at the prospect of showing their antiracism by teaching my daughters that they are poster children rather than individuals.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    > This email (unofficial) has the title "How to Be Antiracist." The only thing McWhorter did was to reorder the bullets, putting some next to each other. > None of those are made up. By definition they are made up. The question is by whom. I cannot find these tenets by googling them. The first link to "third wave antiracist tenets" is this very article. The fact that someone sent you an email is pretty irrelevant, and frankly dubious. I'm open to being proven wrong, but if these aren't published by a noteworthy source, they're utterly irrelevant. I don't like Kendi. I think his work is opportunistic and stuck in semantics. But I don't think he's going to write dumb shit like what the author anchors everyone on baselessly. And even if he did, I feel confident that 99% of americans would say they're not accurate portrayals of their views. edit: on a reread, it sounds like you're saying there's just a separate email with different content. Just because this author uses the words "antiracist" doesn't mean his portrayal of another person's portrayal of the word are the same, or that either are salient. > The very next sentences after your quote discusses the book. The next paragraph also says this: The quote you provided contains literally nothing from the book, just him doubling down that he doesn't like it.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

> But we have not yet solved fully solved it, and anyone who says that we have... McWhorter doesn't say that we have solved it. In fact, in the linked essay he outright says that he supports protesting for civil rights in general and he approves of aspects of the BLM movement.

pfortuny 6y ago

The mere fact that you say "anyone ... is part of the problem" discredits your reasoning. People are not problems: ideas might be. If you treat people as problems, then you are not solving anyone.

cccc4alll 6y ago

The lower classes fight amongst themselves, while the establishment gets richer every second. Ask yourself why you even think about these trivial issues like who is racist? Ask yourself why the establishment media doesn’t talk about who owns and controls the vast wealth in this country? Which has more impact and can benefit people of all races.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
The British pulled the same trick in India for centuries. Turns out that it’s easier to rule a nation when you put its citizens against each other.
aww_dang 6y ago
Some have theorized along this line by suggesting that the id politics movement switched into overdrive after Occupy Wall Street. Although they had different analyses, both the left and the free market right were aligned against crony capitalism.
feoren 6y ago
Violent mobs fighting for the right to lynch black people, exterminate Jews, and separate Mexican infants from their mothers is not a "trivial issue".

baggy_trough 6y ago

The first sentence of your comment indicates that you might be among the Elect.

asitov 6y ago

It's not important to note. Kind of the POINT.

aww_dang 6y ago
Yes, but otherwise the enlightened audience here might prejudicially dismiss McWhorter as a "MAGA hack".

asitov 6y ago

It's not important to note. Kind of the point.

Digory 6y ago

Then, with respect, you are not listening to and understanding the people to the left of you. They deny that there is a mere undercurrent of latent intentional bigotry by those in power (racism). Rather, they affirm that America is a system of power and social relations that keep the underclass just as effectively subjugated as slavery, without the need for intentional bigotry. And they intend to undo it. George Washington is not being removed from school names because there is a tail problem with bigotry that we’ve made progress on. They believe they must deny Washington any place of honor, so that BIPOC children feel safe enough to succeed. Of course we have not “solved racism.” But it is not a straw man to point out the false religion of the iconoclasts claiming to have a solution.

lisper 6y ago
Reference(s)?
- manfredo 6y ago
  The article in question provides several examples of public figures making these points. I've personally encountered people and organizations that . Several who, for instance, decried white flight on one hand but on the other hand criticized whites (and Asians) moving into poor neighborhoods in San Francisco. One company I worked at set up a system of reserving headcount specifically for underrepresented demographics, while simultaneously declared that any notion that the company extended preferential treatment to said groups was hateful and not acceptable. I think these people are well-intentioned but are too scared to confront controversy or navigate nuance in their views. So they resort to this sort of contradiction to try and avoid it.
- omginternets 6y ago
  I don't see the point. You're already ignoring the ones FTA.
  - lisper 6y ago
    There are two references in the TFA. Both of them are books. I haven't read them, so I will concede that these two books endorse the point of view being described. However, McWhorter makes the claim that third-wave racism is mainstream. The existence of two books endorsing a point of view is not evidence that this point of view is mainstream, or even widespread. If it were, then flat-eartherism would be mainstream.

ajuc 6y ago

> This article is the very definition of a straw man. Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques. I've seen people argue every point listed there. Not at the same time, but still. > We have made a lot of progress towards solving this problem. But we have not yet solved fully solved it Sure. There's a lot of racism to fight. But that doesn't mean we should just ignore people pushing bullshit under antiracism banners. > and anyone who says that we have, particularly when they say it in such a condescending way, is part of the problem. Going too far with antiracism is possible and just as harmful. If you go far enough you make young people think all antiracism is a joke. Then they just stop thinking of racism as something bad in general. In some countries this point isn't far in the future. We can argue where the line is (for me the concept of "cultural appropriation" is already absurd enough), but the fact that there is a line should be pretty obvious.

xibalba 6y ago

> very definition of a straw man Please elaborate and cite. You dismiss the entire article (i.e. the subject of discussion) with the wave of a hand before diving into your own battle against straw men. For instance: > publicly tortured and killed by authorities In 2016, 266 black people were killed by police in the U.S. [1] In 2020, that value is estimated to be 233 [2]. That is out of 46 million black people in the U.S., or approximately 0.0006%. No data available on "public torture". While I would agree that any death at the hands of police is unfortunate (though NOT unavoidable), I think most reasonable people would agree that 0.0006% is hardly representative of a widespread or systemic issue that typifies the policing of black people. > there is no problem Another straw man. McWhorter states explicitly: > [This article] is not an argument against protest > I am calling for [black people] to be treated with true dignity > I am not arguing against the basic premises of Black Lives Matter [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/... [2] https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

ardy42 6y ago
> In 2016, 266 black people were killed by police in the U.S. [1] In 2020, that value is estimated to be 233 [2]. That is out of 46 million black people in the U.S., or approximately 0.0006%. No data available on "public torture". While I would agree that any death at the hands of police is unfortunate (though NOT unavoidable), I think most reasonable people would agree that 0.0006% is hardly representative of a widespread or systemic issue that typifies the policing of black people. I see a few flaws in your argument. 1. Death statistics likely do not represent the entire problem, but rather the tip of the iceberg. Deaths/murders are rare overall, but hard to hide. 2. Your 0.0006% is calculated in a way to give one of the smallest possible magnitudes, and doesn't really offer any useful comparison. You can do similar to minimize any issue. If you wanted to make an argument against there being a systemic issue here, you really ought to compare per-capita black deaths-by-police to per-capita white deaths-by police or something. This paper [1] (first result of my Google search) give such a comparison and states: > The highest levels of inequality in mortality risk [from police use of force] are experienced by black men. Black men are about 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police over the life course than are white men. Black women are about 1.4 times more likely to be killed by police than are white women. [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793 https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

joshuawright11 6y ago

FWIW the author wrote a post attempting to defend his position as not a straw man https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/is-the-elect-a-mere-collection-of?r=3vwvr&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=twitter https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/is-the-elect-a-mere-col...

stncls 6y ago

Indeed the strawman is so huge it is tempting to translate the purported 10-tenet list into what reasonable people may actually believe. > 1. When black people say you have insulted them, apologize with profound sincerity and guilt. But don’t put black people in a position where you expect them to forgive you. Yeah, indeed if anyone feels insulted it's quite a natural first reaction to apologize. On the other hand, unless you're having a bad day, try to have a thick skin yourself. > 2. “Black culture” is code for “pathological, primitive ghetto people.” But don’t expect black people to assimilate to “white” social norms. This one... wtf? And no, I don't expect anyone to pretend they're white. > 3. Silence about racism is violence. But elevate the voices of the oppressed over your own. So is the author arguing that silence about racism is a good thing then? And we generally want expert voices elevated on specific topics. I do think many black people know quite a bit about experiencing racism. > 4. You must strive eternally to understand the experiences of black people. But you can never understand what it is to be black, and if you think you do you’re a racist. Replace black by science and racist by stupid. Not so illogical then, is it? > 5. Show interest in multiculturalism. But do not culturally appropriate. Oh come on. All people ask is things like: don't do blackface, it's dumb. Like dressing up as an SS. Fully legal, as it should be, but really dumb. > 6. [...] But seek to have black friends. If you don’t have any, you’re a racist. (facepalm) I'll stop here.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Point 2 is almost surely a reference to a famous incident where the African-American History Museum published a chart which identified things like hard work, self-reliance, and planning for the future as aspects of "white culture". (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article244309587.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/artic...)
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  That's a misleading summary. The graphic defined ideas like rugged individualism and Protestant work ethic. Saying self reliance is part of rugged individualism doesn't mean every other philosophy opposes it.
6y ago

omginternets 6y ago

>Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques. That's demonstrably false. Ibram X. Kendi is the most notorious counterexample. A cursory google search will reveal activist groups organized against these principles. And these are just the ones who explicitly subscribe to the position.

cltby 6y ago

> This article is the very definition of a straw man. Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques. The article critiques a position that consists of multiple beliefs. While it is true that ~nobody subscribes to all of them, each individual belief is very well-represented amongst the "anti-racists." As a consequence, to anyone under attack by a Twitter mob, the situation looks exactly as McWhorter describes: you're being hit from all directions by the entire span of mutually contradictory nonsense.

c06n 6y ago

To update you with an actual source on some of the points, you can start with Robin DiAngelo's book "White Fragility". Most of the points are argued in the book. DiAngelo's books have been many weeks on the NYT's best seller lists. She sells her diversity training courses to many Fortune 500 companies and is held in high regards in progressive circles. You can get a quick overview of the book's ideas on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Fragility#Synopsis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Fragility#Synopsis). It links also an interesting article discussing the book (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/19/the-fight-to-redefine-racism https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/19/the-fight-to-r...). Quote from the article: > Unlike Kendi, who boldly defines racism, DiAngelo is endlessly deferential--for her, racism is basically whatever any person of color thinks it is. In the story she tells about the world, she and her fellow white people have all the power, and therefore all the responsibility to do the gruelling but transformative spiritual work she calls for. The story makes white people seem like flawed, complicated characters; by comparison, people of color seem good, wise, and perhaps rather simple. If you look a little bit, you will find many stories that fit into the 10 points. One of my favorite examples is how an (Asian American) reporter got fired for quoting from an interview from an African American man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Fang#The_Intercept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Fang#The_Intercept). > In June 2020, Fang was accused of racism by Akela Lacy, a colleague at The Intercept. This occurred after Fang shared a Martin Luther King Jr. quote about remaining non-violent and tweeted out an interview in which a black man at a George Floyd protest expressed concern about black-on-black crime. The best part of the story? The person who set of the Twitter storm to get Fang fired, then a colleague of Lee Fang at the Intercept, is (to my knowledge) a white woman pretending to be Black.

lisper 6y ago
> you will find many stories that fit into the 10 points I don't doubt that. In a nation of 300+ million you can find someone who believes just about anything. But it's still a very long way from there to the conclusions that the conjunction of those ten points is a mainstream point of view, which is what McWhorter claims. Nonetheless, thanks for the references and the considered response.
- 6y ago

screye 6y ago

I return your claim of an infamous intellectual fallacy with another. The 'Motte-and_bailey'. IE. A large sub-section of the community advances this exact strawman, while retreating to a conventionally accepted meaning of racism when truly challenged. I'll address the biggest names that have risen during this new movement. Kendi's and DiAngelo's books are written exactly as McWhorter puts it. Coates's is more heartfelt, but ends on an incredibly nihilistic note. Kendi and DiAngelo are the Beyonce and JayZ of the diversity training world. They are the ones moving indefensible goal posts. The common reply to my claims is that Kendi and DeAngelo are media faces and that 'real' academics have more principled approaches. However, these same academics fall in line when the media faces conjure a mob movement without a word of dissent. Any critics are immediately labelled as conservative/racist and bigots. Part of the reason John can say the things he can, is because he is a black academic and has established a long history of goodwill towards the black community in the US. Else, he would have been character assassinated twice over. > anyone who says that we have, particularly when they say it in such a condescending way, is part of the problem. Aren't you strawmanning John now? He never claims that racism is over. He has also seen every institution cover in fear towards this new prescriptive dogma without so much as whimper. He gets talked down to and is increasingly put under greater scrutiny than his intellectual opposition. I find it entirely fair that his tone is colored with condescension.

lisper 6y ago
> Aren't you strawmanning John now? Probably. I have a hard time remaining completely dispassionate about this.
- screye 6y ago
  I know that expectations are different between 1st and 3rd world nations. But, here goes nothing. Back home in India, people frequently die on the streets and 50% of the children are malnourished. It is odd to see Americans get passionate to the point refusing to engage with the opposition on issues. Especially when the problems do not seem as major when put in perspective with the problems facing 3rd world nationals. I live in an international community house and the difference between European and American progressives is quite stark. The Europeans are economically quite left and socially progressive, but cannot empathize with the American culture war at all. Macron and Le Pen voters can enjoy a drink together. This new anti-racism movement specifically stumps most of us non-Americans, many of whom are minorities and from ultra-liberal communities ourselves. Engaging sincerely with someone in opposition reveals an incredibly amount of nuance that most difficult issues have. Prescriptive politics of coercion is often brought down by blind spots that could have been avoided had they only been less pigheaded about it.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> John McWhorter is not a MAGA hack. From reading the piece, he seems more of a Friedman/Brooks hack (much more common in the mainstream media), but still a hack. > This article is the very definition of a straw man. Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques. McWhorter seems to be really keen (not just in this piece) on adapting the old and problematic waves of feminism model and applying it, badly and without much basis, to “antiracism”. > What no one has yet done is provide an actual reference to anyone going on the record to endorse the ten-point position that McWhorter calls "third-wave anti-racism." I doubt you could find much support for people supporting any of them (except maybe #3, which is perfectly internally consistent without even superficial contradiction, and #10, in which the implication of contradiction is based entirely in the fallacy of division, like, come to think of it, much racism.) Most of them have superficial resemblance to things people actually believe, but have been subtly twisted to make strawmen. As one example, McWhorter’s number 2 is: > Black people are a conglomeration of disparate individuals. “Black culture” is code for “pathological, primitive ghetto people.” But don’t expect black people to assimilate to “white” social norms because black people have a culture of their own. An actual real thing many antiracists believe is: > Black people are a conglomeration of disparate individuals. Reference to a singular “Black culture” is code for “pathological, primitive ghetto people.” But don’t expect black people to assimilate to “white” social norms because black people have cultures of their own. The differences are subtle in terms of the change in words, but gigantic in terms of change of meaning.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

mint2 6y ago

I have the same point view as you. Can someone show non-fringe like credible examples of any of the 10 points? And it seems obvious that even if people magically had no more racists thoughts or decisions starting in 2021, as if a side effect of COVID was ending racist beliefs, the intergenerational effects would mean the effects of racism would continually disadvantage large swathes of people. As a society, we should work to reduce the impact of past mistakes, should we not?

pcstl 6y ago

If you want data, you need to specify what standard of evidence would be enough for you to consider that there actually are people who hold this position. For instance, you won't find anyone simply stating without context to hold these 10 positions. If you're expecting that, you wouldn't find it no matter how many people actually held those opinions. Another issue is that any data people _actually_ do bring you can dismiss as "non-representative", as you have not set your standards of evidence. For instance, if you want scholarly research proving X% of Americans think so and so, you won't find any, for a plethora of reasons. That does not mean that X% of Americans don't think so and so. I do believe your argument is coherent, and that McWhorter might be exaggerating and even strawmanning a bit - but if you want data, you need to specify in advance what's the standard of evidence you'll accept and people can then determine whether that's a reasonable standard.

lisper 6y ago
> what standard of evidence would be enough for you Well, I'll give you an example from a different but related issue: the question of whether the Confederate states seceded in order to defend slavery. Some people deny this, claiming that it was more about "states rights" or "heritage" or something like that. So here are some quotes from the Declaration of Causes of the Seceding States [1]: "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization." "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." "She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time." "...the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations..." Then in the Bill of Rights of the Confederate Constitution [2] we read: "4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." So that seems pretty clear to me. When people mean something, they generally say it plainly. --- [1] https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... [2] https://usconstitution.net/csa.html https://usconstitution.net/csa.html