Shouldn't it have been titled: How to be a racist?

One of the books that people are reading these days is How to be an AntiRacist, by Ibram X. Kendi. I read it, probably last year, as I always give most every side (some exceptions) a chance to convince me I'm wrong. It didn't with Kendi's book. In fact, it convinced me more that there was a dangerous trend in thinking which will accelerate the racial tension upswing that started - yes, during the Obama administration. Of course, it has accelerated even more, and the radical view is similar in many respects to Kendi's thesis, except, he is moderate compared to many others. And, I don't disagree with everything he says, but lots of it. 

I'm just going to quote from the book and comment on it. Obviously, I am cherry-picking, because otherwise I'd have to re-post the entire book. If you want me to believe I was unfair in taking something out of context, you have to tell me where and how. Maybe you will convince me. Otherwise, I will trust my judgment.

The book in back. My comments are in blue.

What’s the problem with being “not racist”? It is a claim that signifies neutrality: “I am not a racist, but neither am I aggressively against racism.” But there is no neutrality in the racism struggle. The opposite of racist” isn’t “not racist.” It is “anti-racist.” No neutrality. What do you think he means? He means you are a racist, not only if you disagree with him, but if you don't have an opinion or don't want to state it. 

What’s the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.' More of you have to take my side or you are a racist. How about, Kenzi, if I disagree with you as to what racial equality is? Or how to go about achieving it? How about I think education and togetherness rather than self-victimization, anti-education and separationism (ideas I got from John McWhorter) work much better. What if I believe that accentuating race and identity, as is the trend here now, is not only wrong, but dangerous and completely the opposite of what MLK, Jr. taught - that we need to judge one another by the content of our character, not skin color? I know, for you it means I'm a racist, right?

The claim of not 'not racist' neutrality is a mask for racism. This may seem harsh, but it’s important at the outset that we apply one of the core principles of antiracism, which is to return the word “racist” itself back to its proper usage. “Racist” is not—as Richard Spencer argues—a perjorative. It is not the worst word in the English language; it is not the equivalent of a slur. It is descriptive, and the only way to undue racism is to consistently identify and describe it—and then dismantle it. The attempt to turn this usefully descriptive term into an almost unusable slur is, of course, designed to do the opposite: to freeze us into inaction."  Yet, it is a slur. What happened to it doesn't matter what the speaker intends, only how the hearer feels? Well, that's nonsense and apparently, they (the left and the young) don't really believe it either. Words can be descriptive and a slur at one time. Every Jewish person knows that someone can say Jew, and you can tell from the way they say it if it is a word or a description. And do we want to freeze you into reaction? Yes. Don't go calling people racists when you know nothing about them.

THE COMMON IDEA of claiming “color blindness” is akin to the notion of being “not racist”—as with the “not racist,” the color-blind individual, by ostensibly failing to see race, fails to see racism and falls into racist passivity. The language of color blindness—like the language of “not racist”—is a mask to hide racism. “Our Constitution is color-blind,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Harlan proclaimed in his dissent to Plessy v. Ferguson, the case that legalized Jim Crow segregation in 1896. “The white race deems itself to be dominant race in this country,” Justice Harlan went on. “I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remain true to its great heritage.”  A color-blind Constitution for a White-Supremacist America.  Here, he just seems ignorant of what he is talking about. Or, deliberately deceptive. This dissent was a turning point in American culture, the first time that a Supreme Court judge really took it to racism. Was his phraseology and mindset what we would now think of as racist? Sure, but so was Abraham Lincoln's. They were men of their time and probably couldn't believe there would be a time when race had a chance not to matter so much, where inter-marriage was legal. Here's what Harlan really said:

“The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country.  And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth, and in power.  So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty.  But in the view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens.  There is no caste here.  Our Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.  In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.   The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.  The law regards man as man and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved....”]

 In other words, "all citizens are equal before the law." Get it, Kenzi? Do your homework first.

THE GOOD NEWS is that racist and antiracist are not fixed identities. We can be a racist one minute and an antiracist the next. What we say about race, what we do about race, in each moment, determines what—not who—we are. What? That doesn't even make sense. I'm a racist one moment and the next I'm not. Oh, brother. What I would accept is that a person can be racist and yet say or think something non-racist and vice versa. That's common sense. But, in his version, the person is changing in a short-time back and forth. His fixation on identity rather than behavior is what is confusing him (and so many others). 

I used to be racist most of the time. I am changing. I am no longer identifying with racists by claiming to be “not racist.” I am no longer speaking through the mask of racial neutrality. I am no longer manipulated by racist ideas to see racial groups as problems. I no longer believe a Black person cannot be a racist. I am no longer policing my every action around an imagined White or Black judge, trying to convince White people of my equal humanity, trying to convince Black people I am representing the race well. I no longer care about how the actions of other Black individuals reflect on me, since none of us are race representatives, nor is any individual responsible for someone else’s racist ideas. And I’ve come to see that the movement from racist to antiracist is always ongoing—it requires understanding and snubbing racism based on biology, ethnicity, body culture, behavior, color, space, and class. And beyond that, it means standing ready to fight at racism’s intersections with other bigotries. Unless I misunderstood him, that I agreed with.

So let’s set some definitions. What is racism? Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities. Okay, what are racist policies and ideas? We have to define them separately to understand why they are married and why they interact so well together. Let me think about that. Racism is a marriage of . . . that normalizes racial inequities. So, if a black couple, or inter-racial one, for that matter, decides they want to live in a black neighborhood (I've known at least one couple that made that choice), then they are normalizing racial inequities. If a Jewish person wants to move close to a synagogue or where a lot of say, Hasids, live, he's racist? Maybe I don't understand.

In fact, let’s take one step back and consider the definition of another important phrase: racial inequity.  Racial inequity is when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing. Here’s an example of racial inequity: 71 percent of White families lived in owner-occupied homes in 2014, compared to 45 percent of Latinx families and 41 percent of Black families. Racial equity is when two or more racial groups are standing on a relatively equal footing. An example of racial equity would be if there were relatively equitable percentages of all three racial groups living in owner-occupied homes in the forties, seventies, or, better, nineties. . . . See, here's the problem with the new racists. They want everything to be about race, now and into the future. Like Harlan and Lincoln, they can't imagine a different age. His example is actually racist. Suppose that a racial group, or religious one, or any group decides they don't want to be homeowners relative to other groups. Or, not work as hard. I mean, do you think young white college students, as a group, work as hard as Asian ones in America. I can tell you, I've seen it myself. I taught at a college that was 30-40% Asian. But, at night, in the library, it was way over 90% Asian. Get it? Equal footing may not be equal. Should we make the NFL 50/50? Or have players of different ethnicity proportionately represented. If we listen to this rhetoric, we will drive out the merit system. Oh, right, that's what many want to do.

 A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequality between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equality between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people. There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity between racial groups.

Same response. What we want is equal opportunity, not some impossible to achieve, ridiculous to try, outcome equality. It doesn't work. It's impossible. And judging people as racist because you want a society based on ethnic quotas rather than merit and . . . ready . . . "the content of our character," is scary. 

Racist policies have been described by other terms: “institutional racism,” “structural racism,” and “systemic racism,” for instance. But those are vaguer terms than “racist policy.” When I use them I find myself having to immediately explain what they mean. “Racist policy” is more tangible and exacting, and more likely to be immediately understood by people, including its victims, who may not have the benefit of extensive fluency in racial terms. “Racist policy” says exactly what the problem is and where the problem is. “Institutional racism” and “structural racism” and “systemic racism” are redundant. Racism itself is institutional, structural, and systemic. No, it's not, because we have individualism in our country. You want to peg me as a white Jew atheist or whatever. I don't want to peg you as anything identity-wise. Can we all see color? Of course. We can all see eye color as well as skin color. The trick is trying to get it so skin color is no more unimportant to everyone than eye color. 

“Racist policy” also cuts to the core racism better than “racial discrimination,” another common phrase. “Racial discrimination” is an immediate and visible manifestation of an underlying racial policy. . . Focusing on “racial discrimination” takes our eyes off the central agents of racism: racist policy and racist policymakers, or what I call racist power. No, racial discrimination and racist policy are the same in reality; it can't be just what's in his mind.  Racist policy is discrimination. Racial discrimination is someone or things acts, but also their policy. They are policy or behavior that discriminates based on ethnicity or skin color.

Since the 1960s, racist power has commandeered the term “racial discrimination” as an immediate and visible manifestation of an underlying racial act. But if racial discrimination is defined as treating, consideration, or making a distinction in favor or against an individual based on that person’s race, then racial discrimination is not inherently racist. The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is racist. Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached. I think I'm getting this - if it is taking from those who have, I guess of a certain race, and giving to a race he prefers . . . that's okay with him? Just great. I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?

The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently. There he goes, pouring water on a drowning man. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination? So, discrimination forever, huh? This is why Justice Thomas asked, after a (supposedly beneficial) discriminatory U.S. Supreme Court decision basically said, for 25 years we aren't going to follow the Constitution. Well, what do we do then - another 25? Because if the black leadership keeps on this social justice path, they are going to lose whatever they gained; in fact, we all may.

The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a “race-neutral” one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds White nationalist victimhood by positing the notion that any policy protecting or advancing non-White Americans toward equity is “reverse discriminate.” So, forget White Nationalism for a second. I know there are some, although I've never met one, and think it's a lot more rare than the media would like you to think. But, what he is saying is that you can have discrimination against blacks, but not whites or Asians, etc. 

We are surrounded by racial inequity, as visible as the law, as hidden as our private thoughts. The question for each of us is: What side of history will we stand on? A racist is someone who is supporting a racist policy by their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea. An antiracist is someone who is supporting an antiracist policy by their actions or expressing an antiracist idea. “Racist” and “antiracist” are like peelable name tags that are replaced and replaced based on what someone is doing or not doing, supporting or expressing in each moment. These are not permanent tattoos. No one becomes a racist or antiracist. We can only strive to be one or the other. We can unknowingly strive to be one or the other. We can unknowingly strive to be a racist. We can knowingly strive to be an antiracist. Like fighting an addiction, being an antiracist requires persistent self-awareness, constant self-criticism, and regular self-examination.  In his mind, I am striving to be a racist. In my mind, he's a racist because he wants racism forever, thinks we should be judged mainly by our skin color, and that he can determine who a racist is or not by his decree. Well, no. I oppose the crazy idea of social justice, which is not justice at all. Only individual justice is justice. It's hard to come by for anyone. 

 The only thing wrong with White people is when they embrace racist ideas and policies and then deny their ideas and policies are racist. This is not to ignore that White people have massacred and enslaved millions of indigenous and African peoples, colonized and impoverished millions of people of color around the globe as their nations grew rich, all the while producing racist ideas that blame the victims. This is to say their history of pillaging is not the result of the evil genes or cultures of White people. There’s no such thing as White genes. We must separate the warlike, greedy, bigoted, and individualist cultures of modern empire and racial capitalism (more on that later) from the cultures of White people. They are not one and the same, as the resistance within White nations shows, resistance admittedly often tempered by racist ideas. I know the history of America. 500 years or so of oppression. But, that's the world. There's been vicious slavery and murder throughout history. You know when it's been best? Right now, when, even with BLM riots and Antifa, we are still far more peaceful than a century or centuries ago. And, you know why we are so much better than we used to be? Because of capitalism. In fact, it's the only reason he has a computer and a desk and maybe a job writing books. Is he kidding? How much did he make on this book because of capitalism while insulting capitalism?

Aside from Justice Clarence Thomas’s murderous gang of anti-Black judgments over the years, perhaps the most egregious Black on Black racist crime in recent American history decided the 2004 presidential election. George W. Bush narrowly won reelection by taking Ohio with the crucial help of Ohio’s ambitious Black Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, who operated simultaneously as Bush’s Ohio campaign co-chair.  Murderous? Right now we are in a situation with hundreds of deaths and thousands of shooting more than usual. And he's worried about Clarence Thomas being murderous? Who he'd kill. At least he's pro-life. You want murderous, think about those who favor later-term abortions.

The saying “Black people can’t be racist” reproduces the false duality of racist and not-racist promoted by White racists to deny their racism. It merges Black people with White Trump voters who are angry about being called racist but who want to express racist views and support their racist policies while being identified as not-racist, no matter what they say or do. There it is, there it is. Trump Trump Trump. Racist, angry voters. I'm voting Trump because I hope the racism and murder will stop and know it will be better than if we put Biden in office and maybe BLM or Antifa in the cabinet. Mama Mia.

To love capitalism is to end up loving racism. To love racism is to end up loving capitalism. The conjoined twins are two sides of the same destructive body. The idea that capitalism is merely free markets, competition, free trade, supplying and demanding, and private ownership of the means of production operating for a profit is as whimsical and ahistorical as the White-supremacist idea that calling something racist is the primary form of racism. Popular definitions of capitalism, like popular racist ideas, do not live in historical or material reality. Capitalism is essentially racist; racism is essentially capitalist. They were birthed together from the same unnatural causes, and they shall one day die together from unnatural causes. Or racial capitalism will live into another epoch of theft and rapacious inequity, especially if activists naively fight the conjoined twins independently, as if they are not the same. Why when people say the BLM movement is really about socialism does anyone doubt it? This anti-capitalistic rhetoric is being taught to our young and they are believing it. Thanks education system. Good job. Oy vey.

Well, am 160 something pages in. It's enough. Why would you need more? You get the drift. You want to read his book, read his book. I'd much rather have you read anything by Hayek or McWhorter first. 

This is a best-seller though. We are in a mess.