4 ms·

Except that "anti-racist" is just another term for "racist." This is the whole problem with Kendi's argument. He also contends that if there is a disparity in o

Except that "anti-racist" is just another term for "racist." This is the whole problem with Kendi's argument. He also contends that if there is a disparity in outcomes it MUST be sure to racism. Except he never shows why, and it isn't true. It can be due to racism. But it might be due to other factors. But really, the fix to racism is NOT more racism, which is what Kendi proposes.

Zetice 3y ago
No, "anti-racist" is not just another term for "racist". It literally says the exact opposite. > A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society. vs. > Antiracism is the active process of identifying and eliminating racism by changing systems, organizational structures, policies and practices and attitudes, so that power is redistributed and shared equitably. How do you read that and think, "Yeah that's just the same thing."? Wildly absurd claim.
- callalex 3y ago
  “so that power is redistributed and shared equitably” Equitably is where the problem is. Most definitions people give for equitable boil down to “not equal, but based on criteria that I think are good and just”.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  >How do you read that and think, "Yeah that's just the same thing."? Wildly absurd claim. How do you not? It is a presumptuous contention that all racial inequalities are racist in origin and nature -- the follow through on this contention, that all races must be made equal in outcome, is inherently racist[0]. [0]because it judges persons on their race and not their individual qualities, e.g. an SAT score.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > How do you read that and think, "Yeah that's just the same thing."? Wildly absurd claim You're both using separate and internally-varying definitions of racism. I like your definition of racism per an inherent superiority test. Let's keep it. It operates on the level of ideas in your formulation, but it's really an element of an idea and better applied to individuals and, when colored by law, institutions. Antiracism thus holds its water as an ideology that seeks to e.g. remove that color in law. Where it breaks down is when we reverse that antiracist ideology to the level of individual action and subtly amend the definition of racism from a racial superiority test to e.g. ignorance of systemic harm. Someone disagreeing with the statement "America is a racist country," or "persons are either anti-racist or racist" is not suggesting "one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way." Yet if we brand that disagreement as racism, then antiracism becomes opposing not only that disagreement, but also the people disagreeing. If we go one step further and notice that many people espousing those views share a common race, and then lay animus collectively on their doorstep, then yes, the antiracist impulse becomes, itself, racist (by the superiority test and the axiom that racism, circularly defined, is an inferior belief).
  - Zetice 3y ago
    The presumption here is that "America is not a racist country" is a racist statement on its own. Nobody is claiming it is. The problem arises in what that statement does for the racists in America; it legitimizes their behavior, which means it supports people and actions that do suggest one racial group is inferior or superior to another. It's that knock-on effect one ought to think of as fitting the definition of "racist", not the idea itself. Also why do so many people absolutely lose their minds when they find out that tribalism is a human trait, and when applied to racial groups, results in racism? I really don't understand why the idea that everyone has racist impulses causes such despair for some specific set of people. The problem isn't that you're a human being, the problem is refusing to try to do better than your base impulses. "Racist" isn't a brand. It's a neon sign you flip on and off 300x a day, depending on what you do and say.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
- tdba 3y ago
  To put two and two together, by your definition: Antiracism is the active process of identifying and eliminating ideas that suggest one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way If there are observable differences between racial groups (not a contested fact I think?) then you are racist or not depending on your values. For example, if you observe that there is difference in average height between two racial groups, and you consider being tall to be good, then you are racist because you must therefore see one group as superior in that respect. The anti-racist response, according to your definition, must therefore be to eliminate the idea that being tall is good. For example, if you are a basketball scout, and you disproportionately recruit people from one race over another because they are on average taller, then you are racist. Anti-racist activists would aim to change your "systems, structures, policies, practices and attitudes" to ensure that the opportunity to become a professional basketball player is distributed equitably. But no matter how you implement it, to achieve that goal implies that someone who would likely have been a better basketball player is going to have to be passed over in favor of someone else who was scouted in order to boost the number of people of their racial group in the pipeline. That is, someone was given (or not given) something because of their race, at least in part. Many reasonable people would consider that racially biased, or "racist" according to the way the word is used in common parlance.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    > If there are observable differences between racial groups (not a contested fact I think?) Not a thing, and very much contested.
    - tdba 3y ago
      Even scientists who dispute the idea of a genetic basis for race agree that there are observable differences between races. There are real ancestry differences across populations that correlate to the social constructions we have. We have to deal with that. — David Reich, quoted in Angela Saini, Superior: The Return to Race Science, (Chapter 7: Roots)
      - Zetice 3y ago
- chrismcb 3y ago
  I guess it depends on how you define racism. One common definition is negative discrimination based on race. In order to be anti racists you must negatively discriminate against a race, therefore anti racism is just another term for racism.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Kendi freely admits that he is racist, or that the ideology he invented calls for racism. He believes short term racism is the only way to get an equal society in the long term. Similar to reparations I guess.

Zetice 3y ago

No, "anti-racist" is not just another term for "racist". It literally says the exact opposite. > A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society. vs. > Antiracism is the active process of identifying and eliminating racism by changing systems, organizational structures, policies and practices and attitudes, so that power is redistributed and shared equitably. How do you read that and think, "Yeah that's just the same thing."? Wildly absurd claim.

callalex 3y ago
“so that power is redistributed and shared equitably” Equitably is where the problem is. Most definitions people give for equitable boil down to “not equal, but based on criteria that I think are good and just”.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
thereisnospork 3y ago
>How do you read that and think, "Yeah that's just the same thing."? Wildly absurd claim. How do you not? It is a presumptuous contention that all racial inequalities are racist in origin and nature -- the follow through on this contention, that all races must be made equal in outcome, is inherently racist[0]. [0]because it judges persons on their race and not their individual qualities, e.g. an SAT score.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> How do you read that and think, "Yeah that's just the same thing."? Wildly absurd claim You're both using separate and internally-varying definitions of racism. I like your definition of racism per an inherent superiority test. Let's keep it. It operates on the level of ideas in your formulation, but it's really an element of an idea and better applied to individuals and, when colored by law, institutions. Antiracism thus holds its water as an ideology that seeks to e.g. remove that color in law. Where it breaks down is when we reverse that antiracist ideology to the level of individual action and subtly amend the definition of racism from a racial superiority test to e.g. ignorance of systemic harm. Someone disagreeing with the statement "America is a racist country," or "persons are either anti-racist or racist" is not suggesting "one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way." Yet if we brand that disagreement as racism, then antiracism becomes opposing not only that disagreement, but also the people disagreeing. If we go one step further and notice that many people espousing those views share a common race, and then lay animus collectively on their doorstep, then yes, the antiracist impulse becomes, itself, racist (by the superiority test and the axiom that racism, circularly defined, is an inferior belief).
- Zetice 3y ago
  The presumption here is that "America is not a racist country" is a racist statement on its own. Nobody is claiming it is. The problem arises in what that statement does for the racists in America; it legitimizes their behavior, which means it supports people and actions that do suggest one racial group is inferior or superior to another. It's that knock-on effect one ought to think of as fitting the definition of "racist", not the idea itself. Also why do so many people absolutely lose their minds when they find out that tribalism is a human trait, and when applied to racial groups, results in racism? I really don't understand why the idea that everyone has racist impulses causes such despair for some specific set of people. The problem isn't that you're a human being, the problem is refusing to try to do better than your base impulses. "Racist" isn't a brand. It's a neon sign you flip on and off 300x a day, depending on what you do and say.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
tdba 3y ago
To put two and two together, by your definition: Antiracism is the active process of identifying and eliminating ideas that suggest one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way If there are observable differences between racial groups (not a contested fact I think?) then you are racist or not depending on your values. For example, if you observe that there is difference in average height between two racial groups, and you consider being tall to be good, then you are racist because you must therefore see one group as superior in that respect. The anti-racist response, according to your definition, must therefore be to eliminate the idea that being tall is good. For example, if you are a basketball scout, and you disproportionately recruit people from one race over another because they are on average taller, then you are racist. Anti-racist activists would aim to change your "systems, structures, policies, practices and attitudes" to ensure that the opportunity to become a professional basketball player is distributed equitably. But no matter how you implement it, to achieve that goal implies that someone who would likely have been a better basketball player is going to have to be passed over in favor of someone else who was scouted in order to boost the number of people of their racial group in the pipeline. That is, someone was given (or not given) something because of their race, at least in part. Many reasonable people would consider that racially biased, or "racist" according to the way the word is used in common parlance.
- Zetice 3y ago
  > If there are observable differences between racial groups (not a contested fact I think?) Not a thing, and very much contested.
  - tdba 3y ago
    Even scientists who dispute the idea of a genetic basis for race agree that there are observable differences between races. There are real ancestry differences across populations that correlate to the social constructions we have. We have to deal with that. — David Reich, quoted in Angela Saini, Superior: The Return to Race Science, (Chapter 7: Roots)
    - Zetice 3y ago
chrismcb 3y ago
I guess it depends on how you define racism. One common definition is negative discrimination based on race. In order to be anti racists you must negatively discriminate against a race, therefore anti racism is just another term for racism.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Kendi freely admits that he is racist, or that the ideology he invented calls for racism. He believes short term racism is the only way to get an equal society in the long term. Similar to reparations I guess.