I’m still working with paragraph two of Your essay, M. Kendi, because it was so far from the Truth.
But let me step ahead for a minute, to paragraph three. Because You refer to a man that I GREATLY admire, as I mentioned before. John McWhorter. Just listened to a podcast yesterday, between him and Glenn Loury, my other guiding light.
Professor McWhorter is a linguist, so he comes at things from a slightly different angle than I would, besides the fact that we’re different races. I think what we have in common far outweighs any other considerations. Or, at least, I like to think I also have a dollop of COMMON SENSE.
Now, Professor McWhorter gave up on the idea on the word racism because it had a different meaning for different people. So it may seem obvious that You already know what racism is in Your head, dear reader. So why do I raise the question, right here?
Simply, because there isn’t a COMMON usage of the term, amongst a LOTTA people. Like Professor “says.” People can, and do, define racism to suit their whims. That's common. Having a common meaning for the term is decidedly UNcommon.
This is, plainly, a Trumpism. Do You understand me? Not having common meanings for words allows ANYone, to say just about ANYthing. And they can say they’re correct about something because there are floating versions of the words being used, which can mean ANYTHING they want, in order to make their point.
Racism is such a word. Long story short, I’m going to show TWO definitions of “racism” and show why one, the traditional one, is useless and one can be relied on, in ALL circumstances, to pertain to the issues. It should be noted that wherever I write “racism,” I’m referring to that in the U.S. of A. It may, or may NOT, apply elsewhere.
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. Also called in·sti·tu·tion·al rac·ism [in-sti-TOO-shuh-nl REY-siz-uhm, -TYOO-], struc·tur·al rac·ism [STRUHK-cher-uhl REY-siz-uhm], sys·tem·ic rac·ism [si-STEM-ik REY-siz-uhm] . a policy, system of government, etc., that is associated with or originated in such a doctrine, and that favors members of the dominant racial or ethnic group, or has a neutral effect on their life experiences, while discriminating against or harming members of other groups, ultimately serving to preserve the social status, economic advantage, or political power of the dominant group.
3. an individual action or behavior based upon or fostering such a doctrine; racial discrimination.
4. racial or ethnic prejudice or intolerance.
The definition above is the “woke” definition of racism. Shows just how powerful CRT is, when it infests dictionary.com.
I’ll dispatch all these definitions in one fell swoop, by pointing out that “institutional,” “structural,” and “systemic” racism don’t exist anymore, in any major Way. Sorry to disillusion You, M. Kendi, but they just don’t, in anything CLOSE to the way many are saying they do. Just don't.
I’ll explain why, later. But first, it’s necessary for You to determine the ONE statistic that overwhelms ALL the other statistics about racism. Of course, I am in no way, shape, or form saying there aren’t a LOT of disparities that need to be worked on.
But since, for the most part, the intelligentsia, that is the elites who form public opinion for us, like You M. Kendi, aren’t concerned with anything so plebian as to actually ATTACK these disparities, I may not even have to write on the subject at all.
As far as I can tell, the war is to gain the upper-hand in public opinion, as opposed to, say, a war on POVERTY.
Getting back to the one statistic that will overwhelm the reader, the reader must think about the ONE salient feature, the ONE value, that upwards of 97.6% of Americans SHARE. To be revealed, like I “said,” later. And I don’t believe I’ll even get an argument against it.
Now we can recall the better definition of racism I proposed in Part 2, okay M. Kendi? Professor McWhorter would prefer we replace “racism” with “societal disparities.” Okay.
Societal Disparities (Racism):
1. That which comes about, largely, because instead-a judging a person “by the content of their character” they’re judged “by the color of their skin.”
2. That which comes about, largely, by disadvantages that are faced by one group, that may not be found as much in another group.
Now we come to the final term, in this very short Part, which is “justice.” Weeel, it may not be as short as I thought, M. Kendi.
That’s because the word has been co-opted to mean something different than what it used to mean. Where there USED to be “justice,” that’s now gone by the wayside. Now, there’s “social justice” which, by DEFINITION, everybody totally, completely, and ABSOLUTELY HAS TO be in favor of.
I don’t know if the Pledge of Allegiance is actually said anymore. Likely that was thrown out with the bath water, like all the other things which show the good character of the U.S. of A. Most KNOW it, though, but just in case I’ll repeat it here:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, WITH LIBERY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. (emphasis added)
Various folks will have differing feelings about “one nation under God.” I, personally, am EXACTLY 50% Fundamentalist Atheist and exactly 50% Religious/Spiritual. Hadn’t INTENDED to bring that into the discussion, but there it is.
Now there are some, no small number I imagine, that REPUDIATE America because of the very FACT that America does NOT attain “liberty and justice for all.” For the same reason they sneer at the Founding Fathers, because they put “all men are created equal” in the Declaration.
And the basic, fundamental reason they believe this way, and You may too M. Kendi, is because they’re basically idiots. Things like this are to be taken as IDEALS that will NEVER be reached perfectly. For reasons I get into directly.
Ideals, pretty much by definition, are never fully attainable. That’s why so many people lose so much psychic energy, because the subconscious notion of their ideal self is never realized. Training the subconscious to grok that ideals can never be attained, and that You’re perfect as You ARE, takes a lot of complications out of living.
Point being, finally getting around to it, that we have a fair bit to go before we have justice for all. And that’s principally because we lack what my Dad told me around five decades ago. Don't know where he got the idea. The idea is we don't have "justice for all" because we don’t have professional jurors, elected by the public.
And we don’t keep any information about judge's decisions who, at least, ARE elected by the public.
There is some lip-service given to governments, at different levels, giving “open access” to information about said government. The ‘Net can SOMETIMES do wonderful things. Problem is, if You don’t COLLECT important information that citizens NEED, then it’s not going to be available, right M. Kendi?
But going back to the fact that justice now has to mean “social justice,” and people who are to be highly regarded are those who are SJW. Warriors.
To me, I can’t think of a worse pejorative to give a person, but that’s just me.
As Professor McWhorter wrote, and You didn’t offer any rebuttal that I saw, M. Kendi (although I may have missed it, of course). Professor McWhorter:
"this usage of the term social justice is typically based on a very particular set of commitments especially influential in this moment: that all white people must view society as founded upon racist discrimination, such that all white people are complicit in white supremacy, requiring the forcing through of equity in suspension of usual standards of qualification or sometimes even logic (math is racist). A view of justice this peculiar, specific, and even revolutionary is an implausible substitute for millennia of discussion about the nature of the good, much less its apotheosis."
Yet, this view has come into common usage, nonetheless. You’d consider Yourself to be a SJW, wouldn’t You M. Kendi? If not, many people (many, many people) would consider You one.
I close with this guess, but I’m about 80 – 90% sure of it. The majority of Black Racists are actually Caucasian.
As I’ve pointed out before: MSM and social media. Corporations and almost all the governments around these days. The AMA and the ABA are going that way. The CRT umbrella covers nearly ALL the intelligentsia, the elites who try to control public opinion. It goes WAY beyond You, M. Kendi, and Robin DiAngelo.
I believe continuing down the rationale path of disproving the woke stance of them being the "only ones who care about change" is the smart play. Long term strategic approaches to solving the problems impacting the races attempting to be "helped" by CRT teachings would be my preference. The argument against CRT is never going to win the emotional battle of opinions and will never stop the woke of their argument they are "doing the right thing". Similar to tough parental decisions to be strict with your kids because you care about their long term success, we must make clear the ideas against CRT-focused curriculum isn't because "we don't care about those groups". It is because we DO care and hope to not continue this empty debate for decades. I believe if the approach can be anchored in the same way we would argue that we wouldn't allow our children to get away with blaming external forces for their struggles in life, we should make clear that we care so much about the historical lack of success for certain races in America that we would like to give them a more substantial strategy to long term success.
I think an important thing to consider is who are the "gateway drug" people? Who would you share with someone who was neutral on the subject, or leaning woke because of course anti-racist sounds like the right thing to be?
Firebrands and people dunking on the wokes are all well and good, but not if there aren't those people to onboard new folks, and not if it looks like that's all there is to the anti-anti-racism movement.
In my experience, a very common reply to my objections to any anti-racism propaganda is accusations of gaslighting. This is probably even more common than "educate yourself". It's basically the intellectual equivalent of sticking fingers in your ears and singing "la,la,la not listening, not listening". If someone is convinced that what you are really trying to do is deny their "lived experience" then I think it is virtually impossible to engage with them on any intellectual level. Even where you are pointing out obvious contradictions.
We are in a fight not of our choosing. Proponents of this woke ideology have chosen the fight. It has punched us in the face with lies woven into a narrative for fools and cowards that serves to advance the political power and financial interests of those vested in permanent racial animus. How this isn't obvious to people is beyond me.
We must be prepared with counter-arguments, but just as important, courageously articulate an aspirational vision based on Reverend King’s ideals. We must rehabilitate this vision, continue working to bring it to life, and celebrate successes along the way. People want to have hope. We need to give them hope.
Dr. Loury, Are you aware of what is now happening to Dr. Joshua Katz at Princeton? I am not sure when this latest development occurred, but I think it is recent, as in days/weeks.
I realize that the source may be off-putting to some people, but Rod Dreher is a good and fair writer. What is happening to Dr. Katz, with the full assistance of Princeton itself, is unbelievable: the university is essentially using him as a public example of racism.
Just say "OK Boomer" if you like and I like to approach folks with a "First seek to understand. Then seek to be understood." The old Stephen Covey saying. By delving into the first seek to understand I often can assess if the person is even open to an alternative conversation. It also allows me to get a handle on what approach to access them with an alternative view (even a small incremental step) could have a chance at hitting home thus making a difference. Sometimes, I assess them to be not open to input at least at that time thus I just say something like: "You may be right. I will give what you said some more thought. Thanks for telling me. then move on. I don't like to argue myself. I do like to have an inquiry into what might be accurate or inaccurate and how things in life often are very gray with nobody being 100% right or 100% wrong. So I am looking for a partner in the inquiry to challenge our thinking together not argue. That said, I do appreciate Glenn in many ways and yes Glenn is a fine human being who has made a great contribution to the discourse. A man who has and does make a positive difference for me and many others.
Boy, do I think about this a lot. I was literally in a punk band yelling at the world and for the most part so are almost all of my friends.
Straight off, I’ll say parenthood changes everything. The “grow up” logic doesn’t mean anything until a person’s relationship to the future changes and for many, if not most, of my friends children are out of the question. I had a kid early which immediately set me apart, but I’ve come to see that if you view yourself as the end of the line, you’re attachment to history exists in relationship to the nebulous blob called humanity and who wouldn’t want the underdogs of humanity to suffer less?
That said, how to speak to the people who have no direct connection to the future is very difficult. They have a habit of abstracting things away from themselves. This was doubly irritating when I was a social worker, listening to white rockers prattle on about black injustices.
What seems to work best is pointing out there is no ‘better place’ than America. Broadly speaking, people I’ve met around the world (I’ve been everywhere,man) even Europeans, are more racist, sexist, homophobic and narrow minded than the most basic American I’ve ever met…and I’ve met a lot of Americans too! Realizing how progressive our society is seems like an important first step.
This leads to the next step: appreciating the union and bolstering the argument for holding the American center. Aside from the fact that it’s ’most people’ and there’s no better place, we all live here; we’ve got to figure out how to get along! I think an argument toward radical compassion works best here: if you’re not willing to put down the pitchfork how does you expect your neighbor to put down their torch? This requires bravery and risk and I think triggers an appeal to glory, in some respect. If you talk to a crazy racist and they kill you, you get to be a martyr and prove you were right all along! Otherwise you win a convert!
Lastly, I view people’s impression of me as thoughtful, trustworthy and compassionate as my greatest strength and the thing most likely to change minds over the course of time. I don’t need to argue, I just need to stay principled and adhere to telling the truth as best as possible. Ex. People say they won’t hang out with friends who have not been vaxed. I think that’s silly, but what purpose is arguing? Better to say, “that doesn’t affect my relationship,” and let it sink in over the years. I can’t convince someone they are wrong, but I can show them they way toward a more meaningful, compassionate and ultimately happier way of life.
Yes and no. I give everyone a blank slate to begin. If person performs in good faith, then I attempt to explain the necessity of scientifically proving cause and effect - that scientists in my field agonize over as they are (and should be) their harshest critic. But bad faith behavior quickly erodes “innocent” status. I am referring to deliberate avoidance or interfering with the due process of information at step 1 or step 2, etc. I am generous but have little tolerance for adult games. I place people who merely appear “brainwashed” into the good faith category.
More telling than anything else for me was this comment of Glenn's: "It means inviting people into the truth (at least as I see it)." Where on earth in today's discourse do you see anyone so humble as to admit that there may be truth they haven't grasped yet? You certainly don't see it on the far right or the far left where the idea that any of them could be short of the "final" truth (not that there ever will be such a thing) would ever even enter their minds. Thank you Glenn for your willingness to be vulnerable. Pretty special stuff.
Depends on how much of WOKE you attribute to cultural evolution and how much to what Richard Hanania argues is the result of how courts, regulators and the private sector (complicit in the rise of HR) interpret civil rights law and the staggered longitudinal impact on various sectors of the economy...if it's not both but only one, maybe a fight is the appropriate approach, but it seems like this would be a multi-theater war that nobody can win without losing their morals. I try to find ppl with good intellectual habits and suggest non fiction for them to read which would make their aptitudes and strengths more salient in everyday life and in their own individual imaginaries. This approach creates a sustainable rapport based on mutual appreciation of share information.
What great questions, Nikita. I hear Glenn examining different facets of the “fight” metaphor in relation to CRT and the CRT-adjacent ideologies and policies, looking at it through different frames. It is always good to question one’s motives, and to question what is most effective, to clarify the goals. Some people really dig a fight, just for the fun of it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this personality bent, and if you are a good fighter who enjoys fighting, you probably should spend some of your life fighting for what you believe in, as that is your nature. Glenn admits this is true for him to some degree, and that is useful self-knowledge to temper his approach: because of course, these societal changes we are concerned about are serious business, not a game. Crusin’ for a bruisin’ for its own sake is not the point, and neither is creating a self-satisfied echo chamber of agreement. How do you persuade people, change hearts and minds? Not by telling them they are stupid, bad, or wrong, for sure. It’s hard not to slip into that kind of ineffective attack mode when we feel passionate about a point of view.
And yeah, there has been some of that in the conversations between John and Glenn, as part of their offering is sharing the frank and unedited interactions between them. But many times, I have seen both John and Glenn share places of agreement with those they oppose. One of the things I love most is when Glenn delivers a pitch perfect woke argument, to show that he really does understand what they are saying, that he really has listened and read deeply. How many times have they both had to explain what they think about systemic racism, and how yes, they certainly know there are legacy harms that play out in communities? I don’t see Ibram Kendi responding in kind, with any acknowledgement of different points of view. He doesn’t think he has to. Because the woke perspective is the orthodoxy, the burden of careful and skillful navigation between persuasion and fight must be on people like John and Glenn.
At the same time, the fact that Glenn enjoys the fight does not invalidate the usefulness of the metaphor. As he points out, there are policy changes in schools and other institutions that do require “fighting” their implantation, opposition as well as constructive suggestions. I think the “fight” metaphor is helpful in this facet because Glenn (and most of us) believe these harmful and illiberal ideologies aren’t going away without strategic opposition, without a battle played out on various stages.
But every soldier wearies of fighting and needs respite from the battle. Even if psychological, injuries are real, and can fester if not attended to. Even if we love a fight, we must sometimes step away from the fight to focus on family, on friends, on beauty, on nature, on what connects us, no matter what we believe. Putting a soft-focus on our judgements of others and letting them go, remaining open to changing our own point of view as we learn more. Fighting as a metaphor has its limits. Building trust and fostering love is even more important.
On one-a the prime purveyors of CRT. IMO, FWIW, ICBW, YMMV, &c.
There Can BE No Debate About CRT - Part 3
---------------------------
21/08/15 Started.
21/08/17 Light edits.
21/08/20 VERY minor edits.
---------------------------
As Sir Walter Scott wrote: ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive,’
As I “said” in Part 2, Your most recent piece, M. Kendi, in that propaganda pub The Atlantic, is called “There Is No Debate Over Critical Race Theory” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/opponents-critical-race-theory-are-arguing-themselves/619391/ . And what You clearly MEAN is that no debate will be tolerated. This is one of the FOUNDATIONAL features of CRT.
. . .
I’m still working with paragraph two of Your essay, M. Kendi, because it was so far from the Truth.
But let me step ahead for a minute, to paragraph three. Because You refer to a man that I GREATLY admire, as I mentioned before. John McWhorter. Just listened to a podcast yesterday, between him and Glenn Loury, my other guiding light.
Professor McWhorter is a linguist, so he comes at things from a slightly different angle than I would, besides the fact that we’re different races. I think what we have in common far outweighs any other considerations. Or, at least, I like to think I also have a dollop of COMMON SENSE.
Now, Professor McWhorter gave up on the idea on the word racism because it had a different meaning for different people. So it may seem obvious that You already know what racism is in Your head, dear reader. So why do I raise the question, right here?
Simply, because there isn’t a COMMON usage of the term, amongst a LOTTA people. Like Professor “says.” People can, and do, define racism to suit their whims. That's common. Having a common meaning for the term is decidedly UNcommon.
This is, plainly, a Trumpism. Do You understand me? Not having common meanings for words allows ANYone, to say just about ANYthing. And they can say they’re correct about something because there are floating versions of the words being used, which can mean ANYTHING they want, in order to make their point.
Racism is such a word. Long story short, I’m going to show TWO definitions of “racism” and show why one, the traditional one, is useless and one can be relied on, in ALL circumstances, to pertain to the issues. It should be noted that wherever I write “racism,” I’m referring to that in the U.S. of A. It may, or may NOT, apply elsewhere.
The traditional, from dictionary.com/browse/racism:
noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. Also called in·sti·tu·tion·al rac·ism [in-sti-TOO-shuh-nl REY-siz-uhm, -TYOO-], struc·tur·al rac·ism [STRUHK-cher-uhl REY-siz-uhm], sys·tem·ic rac·ism [si-STEM-ik REY-siz-uhm] . a policy, system of government, etc., that is associated with or originated in such a doctrine, and that favors members of the dominant racial or ethnic group, or has a neutral effect on their life experiences, while discriminating against or harming members of other groups, ultimately serving to preserve the social status, economic advantage, or political power of the dominant group.
3. an individual action or behavior based upon or fostering such a doctrine; racial discrimination.
4. racial or ethnic prejudice or intolerance.
The definition above is the “woke” definition of racism. Shows just how powerful CRT is, when it infests dictionary.com.
I’ll dispatch all these definitions in one fell swoop, by pointing out that “institutional,” “structural,” and “systemic” racism don’t exist anymore, in any major Way. Sorry to disillusion You, M. Kendi, but they just don’t, in anything CLOSE to the way many are saying they do. Just don't.
I’ll explain why, later. But first, it’s necessary for You to determine the ONE statistic that overwhelms ALL the other statistics about racism. Of course, I am in no way, shape, or form saying there aren’t a LOT of disparities that need to be worked on.
But since, for the most part, the intelligentsia, that is the elites who form public opinion for us, like You M. Kendi, aren’t concerned with anything so plebian as to actually ATTACK these disparities, I may not even have to write on the subject at all.
As far as I can tell, the war is to gain the upper-hand in public opinion, as opposed to, say, a war on POVERTY.
Getting back to the one statistic that will overwhelm the reader, the reader must think about the ONE salient feature, the ONE value, that upwards of 97.6% of Americans SHARE. To be revealed, like I “said,” later. And I don’t believe I’ll even get an argument against it.
Now we can recall the better definition of racism I proposed in Part 2, okay M. Kendi? Professor McWhorter would prefer we replace “racism” with “societal disparities.” Okay.
Societal Disparities (Racism):
1. That which comes about, largely, because instead-a judging a person “by the content of their character” they’re judged “by the color of their skin.”
2. That which comes about, largely, by disadvantages that are faced by one group, that may not be found as much in another group.
Now we come to the final term, in this very short Part, which is “justice.” Weeel, it may not be as short as I thought, M. Kendi.
That’s because the word has been co-opted to mean something different than what it used to mean. Where there USED to be “justice,” that’s now gone by the wayside. Now, there’s “social justice” which, by DEFINITION, everybody totally, completely, and ABSOLUTELY HAS TO be in favor of.
I don’t know if the Pledge of Allegiance is actually said anymore. Likely that was thrown out with the bath water, like all the other things which show the good character of the U.S. of A. Most KNOW it, though, but just in case I’ll repeat it here:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, WITH LIBERY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. (emphasis added)
Various folks will have differing feelings about “one nation under God.” I, personally, am EXACTLY 50% Fundamentalist Atheist and exactly 50% Religious/Spiritual. Hadn’t INTENDED to bring that into the discussion, but there it is.
Now there are some, no small number I imagine, that REPUDIATE America because of the very FACT that America does NOT attain “liberty and justice for all.” For the same reason they sneer at the Founding Fathers, because they put “all men are created equal” in the Declaration.
And the basic, fundamental reason they believe this way, and You may too M. Kendi, is because they’re basically idiots. Things like this are to be taken as IDEALS that will NEVER be reached perfectly. For reasons I get into directly.
Ideals, pretty much by definition, are never fully attainable. That’s why so many people lose so much psychic energy, because the subconscious notion of their ideal self is never realized. Training the subconscious to grok that ideals can never be attained, and that You’re perfect as You ARE, takes a lot of complications out of living.
Point being, finally getting around to it, that we have a fair bit to go before we have justice for all. And that’s principally because we lack what my Dad told me around five decades ago. Don't know where he got the idea. The idea is we don't have "justice for all" because we don’t have professional jurors, elected by the public.
And we don’t keep any information about judge's decisions who, at least, ARE elected by the public.
There is some lip-service given to governments, at different levels, giving “open access” to information about said government. The ‘Net can SOMETIMES do wonderful things. Problem is, if You don’t COLLECT important information that citizens NEED, then it’s not going to be available, right M. Kendi?
But going back to the fact that justice now has to mean “social justice,” and people who are to be highly regarded are those who are SJW. Warriors.
To me, I can’t think of a worse pejorative to give a person, but that’s just me.
As Professor McWhorter wrote, and You didn’t offer any rebuttal that I saw, M. Kendi (although I may have missed it, of course). Professor McWhorter:
"this usage of the term social justice is typically based on a very particular set of commitments especially influential in this moment: that all white people must view society as founded upon racist discrimination, such that all white people are complicit in white supremacy, requiring the forcing through of equity in suspension of usual standards of qualification or sometimes even logic (math is racist). A view of justice this peculiar, specific, and even revolutionary is an implausible substitute for millennia of discussion about the nature of the good, much less its apotheosis."
Yet, this view has come into common usage, nonetheless. You’d consider Yourself to be a SJW, wouldn’t You M. Kendi? If not, many people (many, many people) would consider You one.
I close with this guess, but I’m about 80 – 90% sure of it. The majority of Black Racists are actually Caucasian.
As I’ve pointed out before: MSM and social media. Corporations and almost all the governments around these days. The AMA and the ABA are going that way. The CRT umbrella covers nearly ALL the intelligentsia, the elites who try to control public opinion. It goes WAY beyond You, M. Kendi, and Robin DiAngelo.
---------------------------
Part 5: https://freeblackthought.substack.com/p/why-did-critical-race-theory-emerge/comments#comment-2638447
Part 7: https://www.persuasion.community/p/-how-not-to-think-about-race/comments#comment-2674139
I believe continuing down the rationale path of disproving the woke stance of them being the "only ones who care about change" is the smart play. Long term strategic approaches to solving the problems impacting the races attempting to be "helped" by CRT teachings would be my preference. The argument against CRT is never going to win the emotional battle of opinions and will never stop the woke of their argument they are "doing the right thing". Similar to tough parental decisions to be strict with your kids because you care about their long term success, we must make clear the ideas against CRT-focused curriculum isn't because "we don't care about those groups". It is because we DO care and hope to not continue this empty debate for decades. I believe if the approach can be anchored in the same way we would argue that we wouldn't allow our children to get away with blaming external forces for their struggles in life, we should make clear that we care so much about the historical lack of success for certain races in America that we would like to give them a more substantial strategy to long term success.
I think an important thing to consider is who are the "gateway drug" people? Who would you share with someone who was neutral on the subject, or leaning woke because of course anti-racist sounds like the right thing to be?
Firebrands and people dunking on the wokes are all well and good, but not if there aren't those people to onboard new folks, and not if it looks like that's all there is to the anti-anti-racism movement.
I just finished reading William Zinsser's "On Writing Well, 30th Anniversary Edition" and I despair.
An example of poor writing is where I post a link with ZERO explanation. Adam B. Coleman wrote a FINE article titled "Black Intellectuals Are Black America's Conspiracy Theorists." Again, https://freeblackthought.substack.com/p/black-intellectuals-are-black-americas
He's another JUSTICE WARRIOR (opposite of a SJW) who's fighting in "The Lonely War."
If you decided to not fight, you would be unilaterally disarming. They do not share your reticence.
In an arena in which they have all the weapons and own the terrain, we have only our voices and our moral standing. Yours is a key one. Use it loudly.
In my experience, a very common reply to my objections to any anti-racism propaganda is accusations of gaslighting. This is probably even more common than "educate yourself". It's basically the intellectual equivalent of sticking fingers in your ears and singing "la,la,la not listening, not listening". If someone is convinced that what you are really trying to do is deny their "lived experience" then I think it is virtually impossible to engage with them on any intellectual level. Even where you are pointing out obvious contradictions.
https://freeblackthought.substack.com/p/black-intellectuals-are-black-americas
We are in a fight not of our choosing. Proponents of this woke ideology have chosen the fight. It has punched us in the face with lies woven into a narrative for fools and cowards that serves to advance the political power and financial interests of those vested in permanent racial animus. How this isn't obvious to people is beyond me.
We must be prepared with counter-arguments, but just as important, courageously articulate an aspirational vision based on Reverend King’s ideals. We must rehabilitate this vision, continue working to bring it to life, and celebrate successes along the way. People want to have hope. We need to give them hope.
Dr. Loury, Are you aware of what is now happening to Dr. Joshua Katz at Princeton? I am not sure when this latest development occurred, but I think it is recent, as in days/weeks.
I realize that the source may be off-putting to some people, but Rod Dreher is a good and fair writer. What is happening to Dr. Katz, with the full assistance of Princeton itself, is unbelievable: the university is essentially using him as a public example of racism.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/persecution-propaganda-princeton-joshua-katz-racism/
Just say "OK Boomer" if you like and I like to approach folks with a "First seek to understand. Then seek to be understood." The old Stephen Covey saying. By delving into the first seek to understand I often can assess if the person is even open to an alternative conversation. It also allows me to get a handle on what approach to access them with an alternative view (even a small incremental step) could have a chance at hitting home thus making a difference. Sometimes, I assess them to be not open to input at least at that time thus I just say something like: "You may be right. I will give what you said some more thought. Thanks for telling me. then move on. I don't like to argue myself. I do like to have an inquiry into what might be accurate or inaccurate and how things in life often are very gray with nobody being 100% right or 100% wrong. So I am looking for a partner in the inquiry to challenge our thinking together not argue. That said, I do appreciate Glenn in many ways and yes Glenn is a fine human being who has made a great contribution to the discourse. A man who has and does make a positive difference for me and many others.
Boy, do I think about this a lot. I was literally in a punk band yelling at the world and for the most part so are almost all of my friends.
Straight off, I’ll say parenthood changes everything. The “grow up” logic doesn’t mean anything until a person’s relationship to the future changes and for many, if not most, of my friends children are out of the question. I had a kid early which immediately set me apart, but I’ve come to see that if you view yourself as the end of the line, you’re attachment to history exists in relationship to the nebulous blob called humanity and who wouldn’t want the underdogs of humanity to suffer less?
That said, how to speak to the people who have no direct connection to the future is very difficult. They have a habit of abstracting things away from themselves. This was doubly irritating when I was a social worker, listening to white rockers prattle on about black injustices.
What seems to work best is pointing out there is no ‘better place’ than America. Broadly speaking, people I’ve met around the world (I’ve been everywhere,man) even Europeans, are more racist, sexist, homophobic and narrow minded than the most basic American I’ve ever met…and I’ve met a lot of Americans too! Realizing how progressive our society is seems like an important first step.
This leads to the next step: appreciating the union and bolstering the argument for holding the American center. Aside from the fact that it’s ’most people’ and there’s no better place, we all live here; we’ve got to figure out how to get along! I think an argument toward radical compassion works best here: if you’re not willing to put down the pitchfork how does you expect your neighbor to put down their torch? This requires bravery and risk and I think triggers an appeal to glory, in some respect. If you talk to a crazy racist and they kill you, you get to be a martyr and prove you were right all along! Otherwise you win a convert!
Lastly, I view people’s impression of me as thoughtful, trustworthy and compassionate as my greatest strength and the thing most likely to change minds over the course of time. I don’t need to argue, I just need to stay principled and adhere to telling the truth as best as possible. Ex. People say they won’t hang out with friends who have not been vaxed. I think that’s silly, but what purpose is arguing? Better to say, “that doesn’t affect my relationship,” and let it sink in over the years. I can’t convince someone they are wrong, but I can show them they way toward a more meaningful, compassionate and ultimately happier way of life.
Winning isn’t the goal, just trying to stay true.
Yes and no. I give everyone a blank slate to begin. If person performs in good faith, then I attempt to explain the necessity of scientifically proving cause and effect - that scientists in my field agonize over as they are (and should be) their harshest critic. But bad faith behavior quickly erodes “innocent” status. I am referring to deliberate avoidance or interfering with the due process of information at step 1 or step 2, etc. I am generous but have little tolerance for adult games. I place people who merely appear “brainwashed” into the good faith category.
Philip Kershner just now
More telling than anything else for me was this comment of Glenn's: "It means inviting people into the truth (at least as I see it)." Where on earth in today's discourse do you see anyone so humble as to admit that there may be truth they haven't grasped yet? You certainly don't see it on the far right or the far left where the idea that any of them could be short of the "final" truth (not that there ever will be such a thing) would ever even enter their minds. Thank you Glenn for your willingness to be vulnerable. Pretty special stuff.
Depends on how much of WOKE you attribute to cultural evolution and how much to what Richard Hanania argues is the result of how courts, regulators and the private sector (complicit in the rise of HR) interpret civil rights law and the staggered longitudinal impact on various sectors of the economy...if it's not both but only one, maybe a fight is the appropriate approach, but it seems like this would be a multi-theater war that nobody can win without losing their morals. I try to find ppl with good intellectual habits and suggest non fiction for them to read which would make their aptitudes and strengths more salient in everyday life and in their own individual imaginaries. This approach creates a sustainable rapport based on mutual appreciation of share information.
What great questions, Nikita. I hear Glenn examining different facets of the “fight” metaphor in relation to CRT and the CRT-adjacent ideologies and policies, looking at it through different frames. It is always good to question one’s motives, and to question what is most effective, to clarify the goals. Some people really dig a fight, just for the fun of it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this personality bent, and if you are a good fighter who enjoys fighting, you probably should spend some of your life fighting for what you believe in, as that is your nature. Glenn admits this is true for him to some degree, and that is useful self-knowledge to temper his approach: because of course, these societal changes we are concerned about are serious business, not a game. Crusin’ for a bruisin’ for its own sake is not the point, and neither is creating a self-satisfied echo chamber of agreement. How do you persuade people, change hearts and minds? Not by telling them they are stupid, bad, or wrong, for sure. It’s hard not to slip into that kind of ineffective attack mode when we feel passionate about a point of view.
And yeah, there has been some of that in the conversations between John and Glenn, as part of their offering is sharing the frank and unedited interactions between them. But many times, I have seen both John and Glenn share places of agreement with those they oppose. One of the things I love most is when Glenn delivers a pitch perfect woke argument, to show that he really does understand what they are saying, that he really has listened and read deeply. How many times have they both had to explain what they think about systemic racism, and how yes, they certainly know there are legacy harms that play out in communities? I don’t see Ibram Kendi responding in kind, with any acknowledgement of different points of view. He doesn’t think he has to. Because the woke perspective is the orthodoxy, the burden of careful and skillful navigation between persuasion and fight must be on people like John and Glenn.
At the same time, the fact that Glenn enjoys the fight does not invalidate the usefulness of the metaphor. As he points out, there are policy changes in schools and other institutions that do require “fighting” their implantation, opposition as well as constructive suggestions. I think the “fight” metaphor is helpful in this facet because Glenn (and most of us) believe these harmful and illiberal ideologies aren’t going away without strategic opposition, without a battle played out on various stages.
But every soldier wearies of fighting and needs respite from the battle. Even if psychological, injuries are real, and can fester if not attended to. Even if we love a fight, we must sometimes step away from the fight to focus on family, on friends, on beauty, on nature, on what connects us, no matter what we believe. Putting a soft-focus on our judgements of others and letting them go, remaining open to changing our own point of view as we learn more. Fighting as a metaphor has its limits. Building trust and fostering love is even more important.