I can see why someone would feel this is an indoctrination they don’t want to participate in:
“Persons are either anti-racist or racist. Persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial of the inequities and racial problems that exist.”
Colorblindness “de-emphasizes, or ignores, race and ethnicity, a large part of one’s identity and lived experience.” A suggested synonym is “color-evasiveness”
“merit is embedded in the ideology of Whiteness and upholds race-based structural inequality.”
It boggles my mind that this obscure, quasi-theological view of race has gained such purchase among supposedly mainstream Americans.
Among the myriad problems with this ideology is that it projects the experiences of (some?) black people with race onto a society where the majority of people who are not white are also not black. For example, the passages you quote above use “race” and “ethnicity” as synonyms, but they’re different both in theory and practice.
Nah I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think they genuinely believe race is the most important thing ever and that focusing every facet of public discourse on race is good.
Sure; for one thing, there is no biological concept of race. So we should only be talking about ethnicity and cultures, and not about "race" at all, as it isn't a term with meaning.
Good luck defining race, culture, or ethnicity. They are all referring to tribes of nebulous constantly changing characteristics, that people can not only move between, but exist in multiple simultaneously.
The thing you have to remember is that race, as a social construct, only exists as a form of oppressive categorization. It's never, historically, been used as merely "identification" or whatever else categorization might be used for in some benign way. It's always a weapon.
So yeah, culturally it exists. Biologically it does not exist, however.
And I have zero clue why CRT is on your mind here, or why you think it's "reductionist", and in fact would apply to various "white" people through history. Do you think CRT wouldn't apply to the Irish in the 1820s?
CRT is not reductionist, it's observational; the white/black oppressor/oppressed dichotomy is how racism has played out in the United States in the 20th and 21st century.
To be blunt, the US didn't institutionally endorse the enslavement of millions of Italians for hundreds of years. The black/white conflict is different from any other racial conflict in America.
> The black/white conflict is different from any other racial conflict in America.
More precisely, the conflict between British and Dutch enslavers and their descendants and enslaved Africans and their descendants is different from any other racial conflict in America. The ordinary prejudice faced by everyone from Germans to Vietnamese to Guatemalans is not merely different in degree, but different in kind.
If you limit CRT to enslavers and their descendants, and the enslaved and their descendants, I agree CRT is observational rather than reductionist. But it hasn’t been so limited. “White” has been generalized to encompass Italians, Irish, etc., and “black” has been generalized into “people of color.” And it’s that generalization that I’m calling reductionist and nonsensical.
Yes it’s specifically about the British and Dutch. For most white Americans, their “parents grandparents” were in Ireland, Sweden, Italy, etc. Out of the folks who were here before the 20th century, the largest fraction is Germans who came here in poverty and had nothing to do with slavery other than fighting to end it.
That's like claiming color has no physical concept, because wavelengths vary continuously, and our language about color doesn't perfectly match the underlying physical reality.
"What do you mean 'green'? Two sharp peaks at 520 and 540 nm? One 30 nm wide pseudo-Gaussian with mean at 530 nm? Is 564 nm still green, or is that yellow? What about 567 nm? It is a term without meaning."
What's confusing about an isolated population that doesn't have variola virus antibodies being more susceptible than a population with antibodies and a much longer generational history of exposure?
> That's like claiming color has no physical concept, because wavelengths vary continuously, and our language about color doesn't perfectly match the underlying physical reality.
The problem with the American concept of “race” is the idea of dividing humanity into a small number of categories (five or six), with very arbitrary boundaries - the US government officially considers Afghans to be “White” but Pakistanis to be “Asian” - so two Pashtuns who look rather similar, but whose ancestors come from opposite sides of the border, are different “races”, according to mad Uncle Sam
Now, if you want to defend the idea of humanity as biologically divided into different “descent groups” - I think that may be more defensible, but we will end be up with hundreds of groups not just five or six - groups such as Sicilians, Welsh, Cantonese, Yoruba, Zulu, Ashkenazim, Navajo, Pitjantjatjara, Pashtuns, Malays, Tamils, Punjabis, Bedouins, Berbers, etc - not “White” or “Black” or “Asian”
That's perfectly analogous to color. You can argue all day which shades of teal belong to the broader categories of blue or green, and you could also instead talk solely about narrow shades like mauve, cyan, indigo, etc. That doesn't make the coarse categories of red, green, and blue, meaningless or useless.
What’s your colour analogy for my example of Pashtuns on one side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border being (according to the US government) a different “race” from those on the other, despite being physically indistinguishable? I think that’s a good example of where your analogy fails
Throughout all of biology you find definitions that are often quite arbitrary. Lions and tigers are "obviously" different species even though they share nearly all of the same characteristics and can even successfully interbreed, and produce fertile young. The same is true for all sorts of animals in biology. If you didn't know what a dingo was, and you saw one, you'd just assume it was a mut. And in fact it can also breed with dogs and produce fertile young as well - doggo? But again it's classified as an entirely different species.
Perhaps even a more extreme example is dog and wolf. It's kind of funny to think that this a nothern inuit dog [1] is the same species as a chihuahua [2], while a wolf [3] is a completely different species. Maybe most interesting is that the transition from wolf to dog happened over less than 40,000 years. Somewhere in the doggy afterlife there's one very disappointed great great... grand wolf father looking down at a chihuahua just thinking to himself.. 'Yeah, you had to go to the campfire didn't you. They just wanna give me some free food you said.'
> Throughout all of biology you find definitions that are often quite arbitrary
There is a big difference though - there is mostly international agreement on what are the boundaries between species. I’m sure there are some disputes, but also vast areas of agreement
By contrast, “races” and the boundaries between them is a country-specific concept. The US is unusual in having officially defined racial categories. Most other countries don’t do that. And the few other countries that do, have very different categories from the US
I'd argue against most countries not having their own classification system. That has not been my experience, and I don't understand how e.g. a demographic census would even function otherwise. But whether or not this is true, it's inconsequential to the main point. And that's that you're absolutely right the boundaries are often quite arbitrary, but such is the nature of any and all classification systems. You end up with weird edge cases at any sort of binary line you draw.
So I think the issue is not one of arbitrariness, but would it even be useful to have some sort of a global categorization system for humans? And I think probably not. We're a species just a bit too addicted to dystopia, and I'm increasingly averse to pretty much anything that begins with the words global or world.
> I'd argue against most countries not having their own classification system. That has not been my experience, and I don't understand how e.g. a demographic census would even function otherwise.
Many countries collect data on ethnicity-hence, they will have a system for categorising people based on ethnicity, often based on which ethnicities are most common in that country. But the US is unusual in having racial classifications instead of purely ethnic ones.
Differences: race purports to be a biological classification, ethnicity is predominantly a cultural one; racial classifications very often attempt to sort everyone into a small number of categories, while ethnic classifications tend to be much more expansive (with dozens or even hundreds of categories)–e.g. the Australian government's system recognises over 250 distinct "cultural and ethnic groups" [0]
Consider the case of identical twins separated at birth, and raised by families belonging to different ethnic groups-the twins could grow up to have different ethnicities, but few would agree they could have different races. Suppose one twin is adopted by an Italian family and grows up speaking Italian at home, while the other twin is adopted by a Lebanese family and grows up speaking Arabic at home instead
In theory (and occasionally in practice), you can change your ethnicity - sometimes a person joins an ethnic group (often via marriage, religious conversion, and/or immigration), and becomes so thoroughly assimilated to it that everyone accepts them as a full member. A relatively rare scenario-and different ethnic groups differ in their openness to it-but given ethnicity is a cultural category there is nothing in principle wrong with the idea of changing your ethnicity. Whereas, in theory, your race is immutable and cannot be changed (in spite of rare cases when practice has deviated from the theory)
People’s eyes would probably gloss over if you start discussing prior probabilities and how everyone uses them for everything (whether rightly or wrongly), and it is an innate part of humans and probably most other animals.
> For example, the passages you quote above use “race” and “ethnicity” as synonyms, but they’re different both in theory and practice.
The idea that there is a clear distinction between race and ethnicity is very American. In much (most?) of the rest of the world, there isn’t. The Australian government officially refuses to take a position on what the distinction is - it prefers to just talk about ethnicity; when it acknowledges the concept of race at all, it treats it as roughly equivalent to ethnicity. I think most countries worldwide are closer to Australia on this issue than to the US
> Race as a concept distinct from ethnicity arises out of slavery and segregation.
Brazil also imported slaves from Africa, but its concepts of “race” have always been quite different - much more fluid - than those of the US. Brazil never had anywhere near as much segregation as the US. Indeed, I think US ideas about “race” weren’t caused by segregation, they pre-existed and caused segregation-Brazil never adopted those policies, despite the shared experience of African slavery, due to having different ideas about “race” from the start
And there’s a lot about American ideas of “race” which can’t be explained by either slavery or segregation. I mentioned before the arbitrary boundary between “White” and “Asian”, drawn along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border - that seems to have no logical connection to either
Because it's not logical, that's why it's not "crystal fucking clear". You're spouting nonsense, nothing even remotely related to what you're talking about is at issue here, you're inventing problems that have never been real.
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.
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.
“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”.
>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.
> 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).
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.
> "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
> Weird of you to say considering I defined it very clearly at the start of this discussion
You believe "one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way" multiple times a day?
> problem arises in what that statement does for the racists in America
Do you count us (you and I) among those racists? Or are these the non-neon-sign racists?
Do you see the problem? It's insidious.
And do you see the meta problem? This is an intellectually-satisfying semantic debate. But it's entirely devoid of actual meaning! We haven't actually discussed implicit-association biases nor the role of normalizing biased institutions in giving cover to individuals who soundly believe that some races are superior to others. Meanwhile, I take it we both feel strongly about the nothing we're debating.
Yes, when everyone has the snap impulse regarding an "other" group along racial lines, they're flipping on their "racist" neon sign. Then, when they realize that's ridiculous and the result of every human's biological affinity for like-appearing fellow humans, they flip their "racist" sign off. You, me, every single healthy human who interacts across racial lines has this impulse. It's normal, you're not an awful person for being human, and nobody is trying to "brand" you anything.
Racism is an insidious problem, that is correct, but one that many, many people successfully navigate, and even often ingrain that secondary reaction into an automatic response.
When you ask "Do YOU have racist thoughts?" the point is that for many, the natural human instinct towards tribalism is paired with an also-natural human instinct of empathy. Of course this only happens when you recognize the first impulse, but once you admit it's happening, obviously you can get to a place where you're usually able to do better than your baser instincts as part of your natural way of interacting with the world. To deny your tribalistic impulses is to literally deny your existence as a human being.
The problem arises when folks seem to want to pretend human impulses don't exist. How is that "nothing"? It's a critical determinant in how you treat the people around you, why would you call that "nothing"?
Within one comment, I showed how you used multiple definitions of racism and racists.
Nobody is pretending something doesn't exist. But it's going to be difficult to pinpoint what that "something" is if we get caught up in semantics, which is where this issue--broadly--has hit the rocks in national discourse.
No, you didn't show anything related to the dual definition of racism you claim I've given, and yes you are currently in denial that you have tribal impulses along racial lines.
> you didn't show anything related to the dual definition of racism you claim I've given
You didn't respond to the questions in my comment [1]. No matter. Let's take this one.
Are "tribal impulses along racial lines" equivalent to believing "one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way?" If not, wouldn't discussion be clearer if we used different terms for them?
> you are currently in denial that you have tribal impulses along racial lines
I never disputed this point? (Not the denial. I dispute that.) But implicit associations that manifest subconsciously part--this is the first time it's coming up directly. I understood that as settled psychology.
What I'm challenging is putting those implicit biases under the same word we use to describe those who intentionally and consciously believe their race is superior to others', and act on that belief.
The muddling is good for drama. Bad for actually discussing ideas. Exhibit A: this thread.
> point is the impulse and the acceptance of the impulse has the same result
You're arguing someone with implicit biases has the same effect on the world as one who proudly says Jim Crow-era lynchings were justified and slavery wasn't bad? Come on.
When people say soft impulses are different from intentional discrimination, they aren't saying the implicit biases are okay. They're just saying they're different. The word "racism" currently plays--within this context alone--the simultaneous roles of referring exclusively to the former, exclusively to the latter and to both collectively.
Attacking someone who hasn't acknowledged their implicit biases by comparing them to a Southern revanchist isn't only unproductive, it's counterproductive. Disagreement and standstill are almost guaranteed by the structure of the discussion, irrespective of the strength of anyone's arguments.
> You're arguing someone with implicit biases has the same effect on the world as one who proudly says Jim Crow-era lynchings were justified and slavery wasn't bad? Come on.
I am not arguing anything, I’m observing. If you think racism isn’t just as bad when it’s subconscious or subtle, you’re fooling yourself. Just because someone doesn’t call you a name doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking it or acting on the hate.
How could you be so naive? All a racist has to do to satisfy you is to perform their hate in silence? Unreal.
> All a racist has to do to satisfy you is to perform their hate in silence
Nope, you've muddled intentional and unintentional impulses again.
In any case, I think there is a fundamental disagreement here. Between you and I. And between most of the country and those espousing this definition of racism. I had thought it was semantics, but I guess there are folks who believe slavery and implicit bias are moral equivalents.
We disagree, but I appreciated the discussion. Thank you.
I'm not muddling anything, I'm equating them. They are equally as bad, the latter possibly worse. As MLK says in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail":
> First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
We may have a fundamental disagreement, but I'll go ahead and stand with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Even then, the rhetoric is counterproductive. If I'm arguing jelly beans and Snickers are both candies, it doesn't help to call each of jelly beans, Snickers, and a set of the two by the same name.
> I'll go ahead and stand with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
You choose a good quote! Read it again. Nobody here argued for the merits of implicit biases. Just that it is different from what many people consider racism.
The Reverend MLK, Jr. agrees. He uses different terms for "the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner" and "white moderates." Because the latter, while--as he argues--harmful, isn't equivalent to the former. In drawing that line, he strengthens his argument, and shows how the moderate stance resembles the extreme one.
If we rewrite his words with your rhetoric, it would involve refusing to distinguish, rhetorically or ideologically, between the KKK'er and white moderate. In doing so, King would have not only told a mistruth, he would have also lost his ability to sway the latter.
My dude, he says they're worse. I don't think that's the rhetorical win you want here.
I'm pulling back from that by equating them, taking a more moderate stance. But you're right, I shouldn't water down MLK's thinking here; the implicit racists are substantially worse than the outright racists because they normalize the behavior and try to push black people down through unjust tranquility.
No, he says he "almost reached the regrettable conclusion." If we change his words, sure, it's a foregone conclusion. But that's not what he said, and that isn't an accident.
Also, again, he understands they're separate groups with different ideologies.
> implicit racists are substantially worse than the outright racists
Well, I didn't come into this conversation expecting to change my mind, but here we are.
Is your entire argument that racists come in multiple categories, and you think I'm failing to sufficiently differentiate between individual racist ideas?
> Is your entire argument that racists come in multiple categories, and you think I'm failing to sufficiently differentiate between individual racist ideas?
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.
No, they don’t. There is literally zero biological concept of race, and the observations you’re referring to aren’t along “racial” lines that exist culturally.
> Biologically valid races are not real, but cultural racism is, and we must understand how this cultural reality affects our everyday interactions.
Robert Wald Sussman, The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea
I didn't say there was a biological basis. David Reich doesn't say there is either - he is well known to be opposed to the idea. But there are observable differences - how they come about is another question. And any difference is potentially subject to a value judgement, leading to the conclusion I outlined above.
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.
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.
> agree with the idea of racist/antiracist. It's not a crazy concept
Upvoting despite disagreement.
The racist/antiracist false dichotomy elides general disagreement on the meaning of racism. The term has been expanded--subtly and regionally--from intentional, unambiguous animus towards another person based on their race, to unintentional actions or even statistical effects which have no meaning on the individual level.
What frustrates me about the anti-racist/white people are evil/DEI debate is the degree to which it elevates semantics. Yes, words have power. But calling someone who doesn't acknowledge our justice system's history of discrimination a racist, when they take that term to mean something closer to someone who spouts the N word in anger, perhaps because they grew up with folks who regularly spout the N word in anger; that's manufacturing antagonism. It's taking a powerful word and using it in an adjacent context without first gaining agreement to the expansion.
Disagreeing with someone's definition of racism isn't racist per se. It's only so if used to justify racism outside that context. So much of our present debate gets bogged down in that first step to the detriment of the latter.
For some clarity, the idea that "white people are evil" is completely wrong and just as racist as anything else we could think of (though if you look at history, substantially less consequential for white people). Anyone who thinks "white people are evil" is part of the problem.
Seriously, I am consistently blown away by how revolted people get when they find out some of their behavior is racist. It's not a condemnation, it's an observation.
> I understand and agree with the idea of racist/antiracist. It's not a crazy concept, and its creator Ibram X. Kendi makes it clear that a person isn't doomed to be racist/antiracist; a person can flip from one to the other on a moment's notice.
"One is not doomed for eternal damnation, all one needs to do is accept Christ as their Lord and Savior and they will be saved."
In the West, being branded a racist in the year 2023 is basically the same thing as being branded a heretic in 1023. I don't think it's coincidence Kendi uses some of the same tropes used by organized religion.
Most WSJ op-ed pieces are by their editorial board. Almost exclusively partisan chicanery. They write a column almost everyday that exists solely to further GOP talking points and muddy the waters. Some of their columnists are decent, but I immediately second guess anything the board writes.
They both write far fewer pieces. The times writes maybe one a week for the sunday review. Most of their op-eds are from individuals, and not all of those individuals are partisan shills.
Paywalled, but the article's first sentence is "Critics of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis argue he has gone too far in trying to root out 'wokeness', but look to California to see what happens when academic groupthink is left unchecked…", so I think it's safe to assume what follows is typical conservative groupthink.
112 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 188 ms ] threadI can see why someone would feel this is an indoctrination they don’t want to participate in:
“Persons are either anti-racist or racist. Persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial of the inequities and racial problems that exist.”
Colorblindness “de-emphasizes, or ignores, race and ethnicity, a large part of one’s identity and lived experience.” A suggested synonym is “color-evasiveness”
“merit is embedded in the ideology of Whiteness and upholds race-based structural inequality.”
Among the myriad problems with this ideology is that it projects the experiences of (some?) black people with race onto a society where the majority of people who are not white are also not black. For example, the passages you quote above use “race” and “ethnicity” as synonyms, but they’re different both in theory and practice.
They have been wildly successful in this regard.
As is usually the case, it's the discriminators that set the stage, and the rest of us who have to act out the play.
So yeah, culturally it exists. Biologically it does not exist, however.
And I have zero clue why CRT is on your mind here, or why you think it's "reductionist", and in fact would apply to various "white" people through history. Do you think CRT wouldn't apply to the Irish in the 1820s?
To be blunt, the US didn't institutionally endorse the enslavement of millions of Italians for hundreds of years. The black/white conflict is different from any other racial conflict in America.
> The black/white conflict is different from any other racial conflict in America.
More precisely, the conflict between British and Dutch enslavers and their descendants and enslaved Africans and their descendants is different from any other racial conflict in America. The ordinary prejudice faced by everyone from Germans to Vietnamese to Guatemalans is not merely different in degree, but different in kind.
If you limit CRT to enslavers and their descendants, and the enslaved and their descendants, I agree CRT is observational rather than reductionist. But it hasn’t been so limited. “White” has been generalized to encompass Italians, Irish, etc., and “black” has been generalized into “people of color.” And it’s that generalization that I’m calling reductionist and nonsensical.
It's not ancient history, it's what happened to your parents grandparents.
"What do you mean 'green'? Two sharp peaks at 520 and 540 nm? One 30 nm wide pseudo-Gaussian with mean at 530 nm? Is 564 nm still green, or is that yellow? What about 567 nm? It is a term without meaning."
See also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Principal_compon...
The problem with the American concept of “race” is the idea of dividing humanity into a small number of categories (five or six), with very arbitrary boundaries - the US government officially considers Afghans to be “White” but Pakistanis to be “Asian” - so two Pashtuns who look rather similar, but whose ancestors come from opposite sides of the border, are different “races”, according to mad Uncle Sam
Now, if you want to defend the idea of humanity as biologically divided into different “descent groups” - I think that may be more defensible, but we will end be up with hundreds of groups not just five or six - groups such as Sicilians, Welsh, Cantonese, Yoruba, Zulu, Ashkenazim, Navajo, Pitjantjatjara, Pashtuns, Malays, Tamils, Punjabis, Bedouins, Berbers, etc - not “White” or “Black” or “Asian”
Perhaps even a more extreme example is dog and wolf. It's kind of funny to think that this a nothern inuit dog [1] is the same species as a chihuahua [2], while a wolf [3] is a completely different species. Maybe most interesting is that the transition from wolf to dog happened over less than 40,000 years. Somewhere in the doggy afterlife there's one very disappointed great great... grand wolf father looking down at a chihuahua just thinking to himself.. 'Yeah, you had to go to the campfire didn't you. They just wanna give me some free food you said.'
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Inuit_Dog
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chihuahua_(dog)
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf
There is a big difference though - there is mostly international agreement on what are the boundaries between species. I’m sure there are some disputes, but also vast areas of agreement
By contrast, “races” and the boundaries between them is a country-specific concept. The US is unusual in having officially defined racial categories. Most other countries don’t do that. And the few other countries that do, have very different categories from the US
So I think the issue is not one of arbitrariness, but would it even be useful to have some sort of a global categorization system for humans? And I think probably not. We're a species just a bit too addicted to dystopia, and I'm increasingly averse to pretty much anything that begins with the words global or world.
Many countries collect data on ethnicity-hence, they will have a system for categorising people based on ethnicity, often based on which ethnicities are most common in that country. But the US is unusual in having racial classifications instead of purely ethnic ones.
Differences: race purports to be a biological classification, ethnicity is predominantly a cultural one; racial classifications very often attempt to sort everyone into a small number of categories, while ethnic classifications tend to be much more expansive (with dozens or even hundreds of categories)–e.g. the Australian government's system recognises over 250 distinct "cultural and ethnic groups" [0]
Consider the case of identical twins separated at birth, and raised by families belonging to different ethnic groups-the twins could grow up to have different ethnicities, but few would agree they could have different races. Suppose one twin is adopted by an Italian family and grows up speaking Italian at home, while the other twin is adopted by a Lebanese family and grows up speaking Arabic at home instead
In theory (and occasionally in practice), you can change your ethnicity - sometimes a person joins an ethnic group (often via marriage, religious conversion, and/or immigration), and becomes so thoroughly assimilated to it that everyone accepts them as a full member. A relatively rare scenario-and different ethnic groups differ in their openness to it-but given ethnicity is a cultural category there is nothing in principle wrong with the idea of changing your ethnicity. Whereas, in theory, your race is immutable and cannot be changed (in spite of rare cases when practice has deviated from the theory)
[0] https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/classifications/australian...
The idea that there is a clear distinction between race and ethnicity is very American. In much (most?) of the rest of the world, there isn’t. The Australian government officially refuses to take a position on what the distinction is - it prefers to just talk about ethnicity; when it acknowledges the concept of race at all, it treats it as roughly equivalent to ethnicity. I think most countries worldwide are closer to Australia on this issue than to the US
Brazil also imported slaves from Africa, but its concepts of “race” have always been quite different - much more fluid - than those of the US. Brazil never had anywhere near as much segregation as the US. Indeed, I think US ideas about “race” weren’t caused by segregation, they pre-existed and caused segregation-Brazil never adopted those policies, despite the shared experience of African slavery, due to having different ideas about “race” from the start
And there’s a lot about American ideas of “race” which can’t be explained by either slavery or segregation. I mentioned before the arbitrary boundary between “White” and “Asian”, drawn along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border - that seems to have no logical connection to either
Do you, in fact, defend the policy of not firing someone from their job simply for saying, "I am a racist, I dislike <ethnic group>"?
So you are not able to follow logic.
Got it.
> 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.
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”.
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.
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).
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.
> Weird of you to say considering I defined it very clearly at the start of this discussion
You believe "one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way" multiple times a day?
> problem arises in what that statement does for the racists in America
Do you count us (you and I) among those racists? Or are these the non-neon-sign racists?
Do you see the problem? It's insidious.
And do you see the meta problem? This is an intellectually-satisfying semantic debate. But it's entirely devoid of actual meaning! We haven't actually discussed implicit-association biases nor the role of normalizing biased institutions in giving cover to individuals who soundly believe that some races are superior to others. Meanwhile, I take it we both feel strongly about the nothing we're debating.
Racism is an insidious problem, that is correct, but one that many, many people successfully navigate, and even often ingrain that secondary reaction into an automatic response.
When you ask "Do YOU have racist thoughts?" the point is that for many, the natural human instinct towards tribalism is paired with an also-natural human instinct of empathy. Of course this only happens when you recognize the first impulse, but once you admit it's happening, obviously you can get to a place where you're usually able to do better than your baser instincts as part of your natural way of interacting with the world. To deny your tribalistic impulses is to literally deny your existence as a human being.
The problem arises when folks seem to want to pretend human impulses don't exist. How is that "nothing"? It's a critical determinant in how you treat the people around you, why would you call that "nothing"?
Nobody is pretending something doesn't exist. But it's going to be difficult to pinpoint what that "something" is if we get caught up in semantics, which is where this issue--broadly--has hit the rocks in national discourse.
You didn't respond to the questions in my comment [1]. No matter. Let's take this one.
Are "tribal impulses along racial lines" equivalent to believing "one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way?" If not, wouldn't discussion be clearer if we used different terms for them?
> you are currently in denial that you have tribal impulses along racial lines
I never disputed this point? (Not the denial. I dispute that.) But implicit associations that manifest subconsciously part--this is the first time it's coming up directly. I understood that as settled psychology.
What I'm challenging is putting those implicit biases under the same word we use to describe those who intentionally and consciously believe their race is superior to others', and act on that belief.
The muddling is good for drama. Bad for actually discussing ideas. Exhibit A: this thread.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36885608
It's not dramatic, it's reality, but if you think it's dramatic, imagine someone who doesn't' get a job because of the soft bias might feel...
"Oh good, well as long as the HR manager doesn't like my hair it's okay, so long as they don't think they're intellectually superior."
You're arguing someone with implicit biases has the same effect on the world as one who proudly says Jim Crow-era lynchings were justified and slavery wasn't bad? Come on.
When people say soft impulses are different from intentional discrimination, they aren't saying the implicit biases are okay. They're just saying they're different. The word "racism" currently plays--within this context alone--the simultaneous roles of referring exclusively to the former, exclusively to the latter and to both collectively.
Attacking someone who hasn't acknowledged their implicit biases by comparing them to a Southern revanchist isn't only unproductive, it's counterproductive. Disagreement and standstill are almost guaranteed by the structure of the discussion, irrespective of the strength of anyone's arguments.
I am not arguing anything, I’m observing. If you think racism isn’t just as bad when it’s subconscious or subtle, you’re fooling yourself. Just because someone doesn’t call you a name doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking it or acting on the hate.
How could you be so naive? All a racist has to do to satisfy you is to perform their hate in silence? Unreal.
Nope, you've muddled intentional and unintentional impulses again.
In any case, I think there is a fundamental disagreement here. Between you and I. And between most of the country and those espousing this definition of racism. I had thought it was semantics, but I guess there are folks who believe slavery and implicit bias are moral equivalents.
We disagree, but I appreciated the discussion. Thank you.
> First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
We may have a fundamental disagreement, but I'll go ahead and stand with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Even then, the rhetoric is counterproductive. If I'm arguing jelly beans and Snickers are both candies, it doesn't help to call each of jelly beans, Snickers, and a set of the two by the same name.
> I'll go ahead and stand with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
You choose a good quote! Read it again. Nobody here argued for the merits of implicit biases. Just that it is different from what many people consider racism.
The Reverend MLK, Jr. agrees. He uses different terms for "the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner" and "white moderates." Because the latter, while--as he argues--harmful, isn't equivalent to the former. In drawing that line, he strengthens his argument, and shows how the moderate stance resembles the extreme one.
If we rewrite his words with your rhetoric, it would involve refusing to distinguish, rhetorically or ideologically, between the KKK'er and white moderate. In doing so, King would have not only told a mistruth, he would have also lost his ability to sway the latter.
I'm pulling back from that by equating them, taking a more moderate stance. But you're right, I shouldn't water down MLK's thinking here; the implicit racists are substantially worse than the outright racists because they normalize the behavior and try to push black people down through unjust tranquility.
No, he says he "almost reached the regrettable conclusion." If we change his words, sure, it's a foregone conclusion. But that's not what he said, and that isn't an accident.
Also, again, he understands they're separate groups with different ideologies.
> implicit racists are substantially worse than the outright racists
Well, I didn't come into this conversation expecting to change my mind, but here we are.
No, that's a straw man you've constructed.
This is a "squares and rectangles" argument... no wonder you think this is a stupid conversation!
You also don't probably have to quote my entire comment.
No, it remains a straw man you’ve constructed.
Ironically, you haven’t answered a single question I’ve posed in this thread.
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.
Not a thing, and very much contested.
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)
> Biologically valid races are not real, but cultural racism is, and we must understand how this cultural reality affects our everyday interactions.
Robert Wald Sussman, The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea
Peace.
That's true, but nothing else is. No other correlations can be made, and certainly "racial makeup" isn't a thing.
Upvoting despite disagreement.
The racist/antiracist false dichotomy elides general disagreement on the meaning of racism. The term has been expanded--subtly and regionally--from intentional, unambiguous animus towards another person based on their race, to unintentional actions or even statistical effects which have no meaning on the individual level.
What frustrates me about the anti-racist/white people are evil/DEI debate is the degree to which it elevates semantics. Yes, words have power. But calling someone who doesn't acknowledge our justice system's history of discrimination a racist, when they take that term to mean something closer to someone who spouts the N word in anger, perhaps because they grew up with folks who regularly spout the N word in anger; that's manufacturing antagonism. It's taking a powerful word and using it in an adjacent context without first gaining agreement to the expansion.
Disagreeing with someone's definition of racism isn't racist per se. It's only so if used to justify racism outside that context. So much of our present debate gets bogged down in that first step to the detriment of the latter.
Seriously, I am consistently blown away by how revolted people get when they find out some of their behavior is racist. It's not a condemnation, it's an observation.
"One is not doomed for eternal damnation, all one needs to do is accept Christ as their Lord and Savior and they will be saved."
In the West, being branded a racist in the year 2023 is basically the same thing as being branded a heretic in 1023. I don't think it's coincidence Kendi uses some of the same tropes used by organized religion.