is there a unified way to move past our past?
I have not read any of Kendi’s books, nor have I read White Fragility, by DiAngelo, and I honestly probably won’t (despite owning a copy of White Fragility that is currently very close to the bottom of the pile of other books that I intend to read someday). In preparing for this blog, I did however obtain a plethora of information and perspectives regarding the subject, the books, and the authors. Obviously, some of the material I found was better researched, argued, and articulated than others but each had it’s own unique insight into how they understand, and how they want you to understand, the concepts of white fragility and being an anti-racist. This blog is researched, but not to the fullest extent. Because I am not educated or informed on the material in it’s entirety, I have tried to refrain from inserting my opinions on the topic itself, and instead put more effort into my analysis on existing material.
To get started, according to both Kendi and DiAngelo, I am a racist. By that, I mean that I am not actively seeking out legislative reform, and I am not challenging societal norms at every turn. I guess I have to be okay with being labeled that within the context by which the two authors use to “determine” whether or not any given person is a racist or not. DiAngelo says that we are all divisible by race, and if you are white then you need to work on that forever. Kendi, however, at least provides a bit more wiggle room in that, you can escape being a racist but only if you are actively anti-racist. I have found plenty of criticisms regarding the two authors and their works, but I am going to primarily focus on two; binary reasoning, and the human capacity.
Binary Reasoning
By it’s very nature, binary thinking is polarizing and it creates an us vs them mentality. When this type of analytical reasoning is left unchecked, it will almost always be met with objection.
I think Taibbi, in his article written for The New Statesman, though a bit dramatic or theatrical in his delivery, conveys a very truthful analysis of how authors like DiAngelo present their argument: “The lexicon favored by intersectional theorists of this type is built around the same principles as Orwell’s Newspeak: it banishes ambiguity, nuance, and feeling and structures itself around sterile word pairs, like racist and antiracist, platform and deplatform, center and silence, that reduce all thinking to a series of binary choices” (2020). Taibbi is not wrong, I have read 1984 (Orwell, written in 1949), and the term Newspeak is an intentional redaction of the language that allows the writers to manipulate the messages context. DiAngelo and Kendi, whether intentionally or not, present their argument in a way that appears to be logically sound deductive reasoning on the surface but it is only done so in a way that negates conversation, and invalidates reason.
Communications needs to be encouraged and consistent, as Aristotle philosophically puts it, humans are “Zoon Politikon”, or political animals. Meaning, we are social creatures, and what sets us apart from any other species is our ability to reason, and it is an insult to our evolution for us to not engage in that reason. In his interview/article for Forbes, Redstone (2021), presents questions to Andrew Hartz about binary thinking. Hartz says that “the long-term costs can be severe. Splitting [a term Hartz uses for binary thinking] leads us to misunderstand what’s happening around us. It makes it harder to solve problems and predict events. It also makes it hard for people to have productive dialogue, and it works against our shared ideals as a society, like love, peace, justice, and unity”.
When it comes to the conversation of society and race, it is important to come to the table with something of substance, something that you can share equally with everyone. If what you bring is only what you like, then it is likely that nobody will return, even if what you have is really good. Sean Illing, a writer for Vox, was interviewing, historian, Jarvis R. Givens. Illing asks Givens to explain what he feels is missing from the figurative table, and Givens explains that “If you’re striving to create more justice in the world, you can’t do that if you’re only focusing on the things you’re trying to negate. You can’t just be “anti” whatever. You have to have some life-affirming vision that you can hold on to, a vision that’s more meaningful and points us in the direction of a better world. You have to teach people not just to resist injustice but to transcend it” (2021).
The conversation of racism deserves more than a one answer fits all, anti all or nothing, because we do not live in a binary world, or country. We live in a country that has a spectrum of racial ideologies that span from one extreme to the other, and a spectrum of experiences that span from best to worst. This is complicated even more because those ideologies and experiences continue to change, quickly. “Our strategy can’t be just about proving injury. But… Givens continues on to point out that “at the same time, the public has to stop denying that harm and violence has been and continues to be done. Both of these things are [true] challenges before us” (2021).
The Human Capacity
While being interviewed by James Doubek, from NPR, linguist John McWhorter was asked about the definition of racist. McWhorter’s response was, “[w]ell, racism is a very confusing word these days. But when I say that White Fragility is a racist book, what I mean is it does not allow Black people to be full human beings, because full human beings deal with the imperfections of life” (2020).
One of our jobs, as social workers, is to empower hope. Hope is a multiplier of human potential. In my opinion, the most powerful argument against the works of Kendi and DiAngelo is that their concepts nullify efforts, potential, and progress. The potential of human capacity is a double edged sword, it can be great in either direction, good or bad. In that duality, there is a balance, and there is accountability. Kendi and DiAngelo systematically remove one edge of that sword, essentially robbing all people, especially people of color, of their own power or agency to achieve.
One example of disempowering achievements of a person is given by Taibbi (2020). This example is tough for me to present because I have mixed feelings about it. Maybe it is the way Taibbi writes that I don’t like, it also could be that I feel there is truth to DiAngelo’s position, but I feel any truth to DiAngelo is overshadowed by the full truth. I do believe that Jackie Robinson was, as DiAngelo tries to present, so phenomenal that the white league could no longer ignore him. But that stance puts more emphasis on the power of MLB and it minimizes the combined efforts of every Black American baseball player and civil rights fighter that forged the path for players like Jackie Robinson to finally break that MLB barrier. Please click on Jackie Robinson’s picture to read a very short excerpt about the Negro Leagues History.
I agree completely with perspectives like this and I applaud Taibbi for defending the great contributions of past Americans, and for the progress we have made as a nation. But it cannot stop there, at sports, and athletes, all dreams need to be known to be achievable. Givens, in speaking with Vox, says that “for well over a century, [some] Black teachers have been modeling an anti-racist disposition in their pedagogical practices. They recognized how the dreams of their students were at odds with the structural context in which they found themselves. And they had to offer their students ways of thinking about themselves that were life-affirming, despite a society that was physically organized in a way that explicitly told them they were subhuman (2021). Givens and others prioritize this as an approach because they recognize that there is more to the narrative of the Black people than just the struggle and pain of their past.
There really is something to be said about how the approach of white fragility and antiracism dismisses the efforts and growth of everyone, the oppressors and the oppressed. I feel that philosophical approaches like those discussed in White Fragility and Kendi’s work are ignoring the capacity of human potential. By stating that racism will always exist and that everyone is a racist is to cement one’s position in the belief that humans have no hope to socially or consciously evolve. It also paints a picture that everything our country has been through, wasn’t enough to matter. Though the progress may not be what we hoped it could be, we are progressing.
Other Criticisms
I am not here to state a case against any legitimate positions regarding criticizing anti-racism, but I am obligated to point out an under-researched op-ed designed to elicit strong emotions in order to incite polarization. For example, the following quotes from Owalade’s article, titled “The limits of black and white thinking: Ibram X Kendi’s new book, How to Raise and Antiracist, is overly simplistic and dogmatic“
- “Kendi is many things, but he is not a complex thinker.”
- “Kendi doesn’t offer true illumination, only thought-terminating bromides.”
- “But unlike these writers, Kendi writes with neither passion nor eloquence.”
- “But what qualities define a critical thinker?” [in response to Kendi’s definition of critical thinker] “This definition is excellent, but Kendi has never demonstrated any aptitude for the qualities he lists. He is not interested in complicating, but in simplifying. He is not reflective or inquisitive, but dogmatic.
… and the following video segment from Fox News where, parent, Jenifer Stefano, discusses the reasons that she is willing to pull her child out of a private school in response to racial discussion. Below are a few quotes from the video:
- Not allowing children to go where the best schools are (being restricted by where you live)
- This mainly impacts low income families and families of color
- (news anchor replies, your zip code should not determine your future)
- Don’t fund the system, fund the child. Then let mothers send their children to schools that they think are best
I find it troubling that redlining was discussed in this video but then they suggested defunding schools and giving those funds to families so they can then choose what schools they want their kids to go to. This sounds great, but by circumventing even more state funds into quality neighborhoods and their higher performing schools it will worsen both the disparities and the inequities that low income neighborhoods with low performing schools already face.
What is most frustrating about these examples is that they all did have some validity to what they were saying, but they do so in a way that is, at this point in our political arena, very exhausting. Their presentation of their argument is as divisive as the content of the books they are criticizing.
So what is the answer?
Everyone is searching for that magical answer/solution/response/reason to address the the continued existence of racism in the U.S.. But while we are all looking for it, we are also seeking out every opportunity to invalidate alternative ideologies, and to discredit the bringers of alternative thought processes simply because they didn’t get it right the first time. Hughes, in his article, titled, How to be an Anti-Intellectual, writing about Kendi’s work, hits on a key theme with most critics: “the book is poorly argued, sloppily researched, insufficiently fact-checked, and occasionally self-contradictory (2019). The paragraph continues on with his assessment but it just gets more personal from there. The one thing Hughes did that a lot of other critics didn’t is provide any credit where credit is due. Immediately preceding the above quote, Hughes says that “How to Be an Antiracist is the clearest and most jargon-free articulation of modern antiracism I’ve read, and for that reason alone it is a useful contribution”.
The criticisms both for and against the works by Kendi and DiAngelo are valid. But where they, and others go wrong is when the concepts, ideologies, philosophies, or whatever, are held as being the end-all be-all solution with no room for error. These works need to be acknowledged for their contribution to the bigger conversation, they cannot be the tool in which shuts the conversation down. Again, from the Vox article, Givens explains: “Take an enormous concept like “structural racism,” which is a catchall to describe how contemporary inequalities have their roots in history and institutions. On the one hand, that’s just obviously true. But at the same time — and I think you share this instinct — we don’t want to reduce people to historical props with no agency, and we don’t want to define any oppressed group by the actions of their oppressors” (2021).
There is a running joke in my house and that is, when someone gets butthurt about something, the common response is “quit being traumatized”. We joke, but that joke comes from trust that we respect each others life experiences. In reality, it is wildly inappropriate to say that to a person, or a group of people. America has a past, and it needs to be talked about, without fear of upsetting people, because it is going to upset people at times. One last quote from the Givens interview: “one thing I do know is that there are some people in this country who never had the luxury of not facing this stuff. And they’ve always encountered a lot of discomfort. It’s not comfortable for Black folks or Native American communities to think about the history of land dispossession or slavery or Jim Crow or lynchings, and how the legacy of these things persist today” (2021).
I picked this blog topic because I have wanted to understand the topic more deeply. When I started my research, I aligned much more to the ideas of Kendi and DiAngelo than I currently do. I still believe that their work is important and the message is more profound than a lot of critics give them credit for. But I, personally, feel that the concepts are counterproductive to conversation, at least in the way that they are currently being mass distributed to the people. I encourage you to explore the first two links below: one dives into what CRT is and where it came from, and the other is an interactive site where you can learn about the Civil Rights Act.
Long story even longer… I have touched on it a couple times in this blog, even though there is no right answer to the racism problem in our country, or anywhere, it has something to do with critical thinking and communication. Right now, the lack of, or even hostile communication between the different “sides” of the issue is preventing affective critical thinking. Not only that, it is extinguishing it at the ambers.
Four Years Ago
In the summer of 2020, during an online class with Linda Thai, I engaged in group conversation about BLM and the race issue within the U.S.. The reason I engaged in this conversation was that, around the same time, I was writing a paper on “Deaths of Despair” and the research I had done for that paper led me to the troubling statistics regarding the increased rate of deaths by alcohol, drugs, and suicide. Where my concern came from is that I also found that the population that is seeing the greatest proportional increase in those deaths are white, middle-aged, men, which is exactly me (the leading protective factor being obtaining a bachelor’s degree, so stay in school). The biggest lesson I learned that day is that I should not engage in a polarizing conversation without being mentally/intellectually prepared to articulate my position. But it was that day that I also learned that it is important to address concerns about social issues without taking away from another social issue. Everybody’s experience is important.
Additional Links
https://apps.npr.org/behind-the-civil-rights-act/#/annotations
https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-critical-race-theory.html.
https://www.npr.org/series/868567696/america-reckons-with-racial-injustice
https://www.nlbm.com/negro-leagues-history/
Christine Ryan
Thank you, Ian, for this insightful blog and for adding video and book options to broaden our views on these very important topics. I am classified as a racist too, since I am not actively seeking out legislative reform. For so many years I was worried since I am a white female, how I could defend and ask for change when I didn’t fully understand all the issues. These active issues are deeply impacting our communities and people. I can keep educating myself and always question the norms. Help educate my children and introduce them to all cultures and people.
Robi Naranjo
I like your breakdown of this topic. I have heard both sides, and some of it is very polarizing; there’s an echo chamber, too, where you can almost tell who has been in one. I watched an antiracism video with Kendi and one of the comments in the comment section was “if you not helping us burn witches, you a witch” it does come off that way and humans are way more complex than that and that is not going to solve anything.
I like how you put this; it’s funny; I’m going to start saying that, lol. And you made a good point at the end.
“There is a running joke in my house and that is, when someone gets butthurt about something, the common response is “quit being traumatized”. We joke, but that joke comes from trust that we respect each others life experiences. In reality, it is wildly inappropriate to say that to a person, or a group of people. America has a past, and it needs to be talked about, without fear of upsetting people, because it is going to upset people at times. One last quote from the Givens interview: “one thing I do know is that there are some people in this country who never had the luxury of not facing this stuff. And they’ve always encountered a lot of discomfort. It’s not comfortable for Black folks or Native American communities to think about the history of land dispossession or slavery or Jim Crow or lynchings, and how the legacy of these things persist today” (2021).”
Trinity Podbicanin
I want to first start by saying that it is so cool that you added a link to a picture. I clicked on the photo, and it brought me to the website, and I thought it was so cool. Anyways, your blog was very descriptive and thorough; you did an excellent job explaining everything and made your blog very informative. Looking at the ideas of DiAngelo and Kendi, I do not think it is fair for the idea of “DiAngelo [saying] that we are all divisible by race, and if you are white then you need to work on that forever [and] Kendi, [saying]… you can escape being a racist but only if you are actively anti-racist.” I agree with the source when it says, “We need to treat racism with greater sophistication, but in his books there is little room for insightful discussion or debate.” Kendi gives no room for any other form of discussion other than you are racist or anti-racist, and I just think it goes deeper than that. I saw a quote from his book “How to be an Anti-racist” that said, “Racist ideas make people of color think less of themselves which make them more vulnerable to racist ideas. Racist ideas make white people think more of themselves which further attracts them to racist ideas.” I have to disagree, maybe not on the aspect of how racist ideas affect people of color but on the idea of how white people think of racist ideas. I am white, and I do not think racist ideas make me think more of myself. I think Kendi needs to develop his thinking more to make it not so binary thinking. As you said, “The conversation of racism deserves more than a one answer fits all, anti all or nothing, because we do not live in a binary world, or country.”