Ibram X. Kendi on "Not racist"

[j brown's body]

“That is what it truly means to think as an antiracist: to think there is nothing wrong with Black people, to think that racial groups are equal. There are lazy and unwise and harmful individuals of African ancestry. There are lazy and unwise and harmful individuals of European ancestry. There are industrious and wise and harmless individuals of European ancestry. There are industrious and wise and harmless individuals of African ancestry. But no racial group has ever had a monopoly on any type of human trait or gene—not now, not ever.”

and

“The opposite of racist isn't 'not racist.' It is 'anti-racist.' What's the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an anti-racist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.”

Link

Simple and valid. Is he wrong?

 

[Rickeroo]

“That is what it truly means to think as an antiracist: to think there is nothing wrong with Black people, to think that racial groups are equal. There are lazy and unwise and harmful individuals of African ancestry. There are lazy and unwise and harmful individuals of European ancestry. There are industrious and wise and harmless individuals of European ancestry. There are industrious and wise and harmless individuals of African ancestry. But no racial group has ever had a monopoly on any type of human trait or gene—not now, not ever.”

and

“The opposite of racist isn't 'not racist.' It is 'anti-racist.' What's the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an anti-racist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.”

Link

Simple and valid. Is he wrong?

This adequately describes Kendi's position. White democrats believe this as well, they just don't want to pay the fee to upgrade from non-racist to anti-racist.

 

[bubbabgone]

“That is what it truly means to think as an antiracist: to think there is nothing wrong with Black people, to think that racial groups are equal. There are lazy and unwise and harmful individuals of African ancestry. There are lazy and unwise and harmful individuals of European ancestry. There are industrious and wise and harmless individuals of European ancestry. There are industrious and wise and harmless individuals of African ancestry. But no racial group has ever had a monopoly on any type of human trait or gene—not now, not ever.”

and

“The opposite of racist isn't 'not racist.' It is 'anti-racist.' What's the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an anti-racist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.”

Link

Simple and valid. Is he wrong?

It's simple all right. And racist. Cuz why would race equity and reparations be right?

 

[Michael Cole]

“That is what it truly means to think as an antiracist: to think there is nothing wrong with Black people, to think that racial groups are equal. There are lazy and unwise and harmful individuals of African ancestry. There are lazy and unwise and harmful individuals of European ancestry. There are industrious and wise and harmless individuals of European ancestry. There are industrious and wise and harmless individuals of African ancestry. But no racial group has ever had a monopoly on any type of human trait or gene—not now, not ever.”

This I agree with completely.

and

“The opposite of racist isn't 'not racist.' It is 'anti-racist.' What's the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an anti-racist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.”

Link

Simple and valid. Is he wrong?

This, not so much. I agree with his definitions and his observation that change requires confrontation (what that confrontation involves can be debated.)

What I disagree with is this: One endorses...

This implies everyone falls into one of the two groups. There are many who would be called "not racist." People can and do go through life both not racist, and not concerned with (or even aware of) systemic racism.

 

[Rickeroo]

People can and do go through life both not racist, and not concerned with (or even aware of) systemic racism.

This will be grudgingly permitted for some years to come due to demographics. But if one isn't actively working to take down a systemically racist system, one is complicit in that system. It is white fragility that shields whites from their culpability.

 

[ApersonLIKEallOFyou]

I shouldn’t care about this clown’s redefining of words but he does convince other people to believe his bullshit so that’s a problem.

 

[Rickeroo]

I shouldn’t care about this clown’s redefining of words but he does convince other people to believe his bullshit so that’s a problem.

Kendi is all over the place. Here's a Principal Induction and Mentoring Handbook from the Massachusetts Department of Education:

Bibliography of Research Supporting the Anti-racist Leadership Competencies
How To Be An Antiracist. Kendi, Ibram X., New York: Random House, 2019.

 

[code1211]

“That is what it truly means to think as an antiracist: to think there is nothing wrong with Black people, to think that racial groups are equal. There are lazy and unwise and harmful individuals of African ancestry. There are lazy and unwise and harmful individuals of European ancestry. There are industrious and wise and harmless individuals of European ancestry. There are industrious and wise and harmless individuals of African ancestry. But no racial group has ever had a monopoly on any type of human trait or gene—not now, not ever.”

and

“The opposite of racist isn't 'not racist.' It is 'anti-racist.' What's the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an anti-racist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.”

Link

Simple and valid. Is he wrong?

Not only wrong but absolutely wrong. A person that is not a racist is not a racist.

Whether a racist or an "anti-racist", race and racial awareness is the guiding principle in the thinking of members affiliated with either and both groups.

My wife is Puerto Rican and is sensitive to folks who are dismissive. She is aware of being dismissed by some "Whites", some "Blacks" and by some others for what she considers to be nothing more than racial traits.

As a 'White" person, I am very often not included in the activities of Hispanic groups in which we participate. Language barriers and so forth contribute along with societal heritage differences.

Among "Black" people, I am often simply dismissed out of hand. Warm courtesy extended in the service to the "Black" customer in front of me in line and cold indifference used in service to me by the "Black" attendant. No matter.

This is more often the case in groups or individuals of younger people so they might be simply dismissing the "old" guy rather than the "White" guy. Again, no matter. Noticeable, but not particularly hurtful.

Old folks seem to share many commonalities that tend to melt less important differences. Race is one of these differences. Commonalities are the basis of much cooperation and communication.

 

[Michael Cole]

This will be grudgingly permitted for some years to come due to demographics. But if one isn't actively working to take down a systemically racist system, one is complicit in that system. It is white fragility that shields whites from their culpability.

Oooookay...

I was thinking real life. Like me and my Mexican gf. We're not racist, and we're too busy working and pausing movies to think about systemic racism. She, being an Hispanic immigrant, surely knows it exists. Doesn't bother her. She's done well for herself and her children with hard work. Myself, I'm in no position to affect the system one way or the other, and at my age, l'm done concerning myself with what the system does. Progress is slow, but it is always forward. I sleep fine knowing this.

I've never met a fragile white, nor do I know what the rest of your post means. I just disagree with Kendi's exclusion of people like me. Kendi's militant style detracts from his scholarship and can falsely place people into boxes, as he does here.

 

[j brown's body]

This I agree with completely.



This, not so much. I agree with his definitions and his observation that change requires confrontation (what that confrontation involves can be debated.)

What I disagree with is this: One endorses...

This implies everyone falls into one of the two groups. There are many who would be called "not racist." People can and do go through life both not racist, and not concerned with (or even aware of) systemic racism.

A bystander, in other words. They are often to be considered worse than the perpetrator.

This is generally white people we are talking about being somewhat blissfully unaware of the privileges they have based on their race. They lea of ignorance, it seems to me, can only serve to perpetuate it.

 

[Rickeroo]

I've never met a fragile white, nor do I know what the rest of your post means.

Personally, I'll never vote democrat and I am against anything race-based or woke. When I talk about what racism is or isn't, it's from a practical societal view. I don't get to determine what's racist or not. The concept of white fragility and Kendi's doctrine has penetrated school systems.

 

[ApersonLIKEallOFyou]

Kendi is all over the place. Here's a Principal Induction and Mentoring Handbook from the Massachusetts Department of Education:

Bibliography of Research Supporting the Anti-racist Leadership Competencies
How To Be An Antiracist. Kendi, Ibram X., New York: Random House, 2019.

Yea and that’s not good. His nonsense is toxic.

 

[j brown's body]

Not only wrong but absolutely wrong. A person that is not a racist is not a racist.

Whether a racist or an "anti-racist", race and racial awareness is the guiding principle in the thinking of members affiliated with either and both groups.

My wife is Puerto Rican and is sensitive to folks who are dismissive. She is aware of being dismissed by some "Whites", some "Blacks" and by some others for what she considers to be nothing more than racial traits.

As a 'White" person, I am very often not included in the activities of Hispanic groups in which we participate. Language barriers and so forth contribute along with societal heritage differences.

Among "Black" people, I am often simply dismissed out of hand. Warm courtesy extended in the service to the "Black" customer in front of me in line and cold indifference used in service to me by the "Black" attendant. No matter.

This is more often the case in groups or individuals of younger people so they might be simply dismissing the "old" guy rather than the "White" guy. Again, no matter. Noticeable, but not particularly hurtful.

Old folks seem to share many commonalities that tend to melt less important differences. Race is one of these differences. Commonalities are the basis of much cooperation and communication.

I don't understand this rebuttal.

 

[Rickeroo]

Yea and that’s not good. His nonsense is toxic.

Oregon Department of Education Recommended Non-Textbooks (Social Sciences Standards)

Ibram X Kendi Stamped From the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas

I sense a Kendi field day coming on.

 

[Rickeroo]

California Department of Education , Federal Update 2021

The first priority is “projects that incorporate racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse perspectives into teaching and learning.” ED notes the New York Times 1619 Project in its description of the priority and the importance of teaching about the contributions of Black Americans to society. The priority is a direct shift from the prior administration which had criticized the tenets of the 1619 Project. ED also cites the anti-racist teachings of scholar Ibram X. Kendi in its description of its first grant priority.

 

[Michael Cole]

A bystander, in other words. They are often to be considered worse than the perpetrator.

This is generally white people we are talking about being somewhat blissfully unaware of the privileges they have based on their race. They lea of ignorance, it seems to me, can only serve to perpetuate it.

I disagree. One can be aware of systemic racism and a bystander. In an area such as mine, with a high immigrant population and a relatively low black population, the type of systemic racism Kendi refers to is invisible compared to, let's say, Philadelphia. Or Detroit or Chicago or Atlanta or Birmingham.

People's awareness of systemic racism is related to the level they see in their daily lives. Immigrants have very different views than we natives do. Kendi's abrupt classification leaves out the omnipresent gray area.

 

[j brown's body]

California Department of Education , Federal Update 2021

The first priority is “projects that incorporate racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse perspectives into teaching and learning.” ED notes the New York Times 1619 Project in its description of the priority and the importance of teaching about the contributions of Black Americans to society. The priority is a direct shift from the prior administration which had criticized the tenets of the 1619 Project. ED also cites the anti-racist teachings of scholar Ibram X. Kendi in its description of its first grant priority.

How do you feel about the quotes? You know, the topic of the thread?

 

[GummyVitamins]

The problem with Kendi is that he endorses discrimination. His entire philosophy can be summed up in his own words, "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

 

[j brown's body]

The problem with Kendi is that he endorses discrimination. His entire philosophy can be summed up in his own words, "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

How do you feel about the quotes here?

 

[GummyVitamins]

How do you feel about the quotes here?

I disagree with racial discrimination (racism) and people who support it regardless of their skin color or the skin color of the beneficiaries.

 

[AGENT J]

“That is what it truly means to think as an antiracist: to think there is nothing wrong with Black people, to think that racial groups are equal. There are lazy and unwise and harmful individuals of African ancestry. There are lazy and unwise and harmful individuals of European ancestry. There are industrious and wise and harmless individuals of European ancestry. There are industrious and wise and harmless individuals of African ancestry. But no racial group has ever had a monopoly on any type of human trait or gene—not now, not ever.”

100% correct

and

“The opposite of racist isn't 'not racist.' It is 'anti-racist.' What's the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an anti-racist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.”

Link

Simple and valid. Is he wrong?

and also correct but people have to understand this has to be applied on an individual, circumstantial basis and must be defined

right now as a general statement its too subjective and undefined as to what "allows racial inequities to persevere" and "confronts racial inequities" actual means

they could mean a lot of different things to person A, B and C no matter race, gender, age, class etc

THIS IS FOR EVERYBODY TO THINK ABOUT

to put it in simple terms, if i was anybody's best friend here and I claimed to NOT be your enemy but the people I work with/for and or associate with are always bashing you, telling lies about you, treating you as a lesser or finding ways to oppress you and I do nothing, it would be a hard sell to claim im NOT be your enemy. I need to be anti-enemy

I mean if i did nothing would you respect me? would you consider me a friend? consider me not your enemy? consider me part of the problem? etc etc

they lie and talk crap about you, i should defend you and say thats a lie
they try to treat you as a lesser or oppress you i should speak up and call them out on that activity

that is in fact what I do for my loved ones now so why wouldnt i do it for people i respect and care about

now I might not have any real power to do anything but turning a blind eye to it is part of the problem and wrong
also not where i would not go is labeling the individual who does nothing as racist per say but i agree the label not racist is a hard sell since they are part of the problem . . .
they are complicit with racism and thats the rub . . . .



if that doesnt get your integrity, civility, moral and or dishonesty alarms ringing thing about this
how would you feel if all those things happened, a group of people were bashing and oppressing "your friend" you did nothing or even laughed with them and then realized your friend can hear and see you doing nothing . . . .

 

[ApersonLIKEallOFyou]

And with a simple tweet to Merriam-Webster this clown could probably get the definition of racist changed to include anyone who isn’t “anti-racist.”

 

[Rickeroo]

How do you feel about the quotes? You know, the topic of the thread?

The first quote is race-neutral, and as such I don't think Kendi believes it himself:

But no racial group has ever had a monopoly on any type of human trait

I'd ask Kendi if he thinks whites have a monopoly on the oppressive trait. The second quote, summed up with there is no in-between safe space of 'not racist” indicates a "you're either with us or against us" tone regarding CRT's assertion that whites are racist by virtue of compliant participation in a racist system.

I[m a capitalist so anything that comes out of Kendi's mouth sounds like communism to me. I personally don't support his views, but I do keep close tabs on Kendi's general acceptance in the culture.

 

[element94]

It's simple all right. And racist. Cuz why would race equity and reparations be right?

Maybe because slavery was one of the biggest injustices in the history of humankind. We're not talking about Roman slaves thousands of years ago, but U.S. slaves 150 some years ago.

 

[Rickeroo]

And with a simple tweet to Merriam-Webster this clown could probably get the definition of racist changed to include anyone who isn’t “anti-racist.”

The reason this hasn't been done yet is because the left still depends on white votes. Once it no longer does, the definition of racist will change.