The Jefferson's reference in the accompanying picture is spot on. Nothing was more hilarious than that pained smile commingled with barely concealed disgust when George Jefferson had to deal with a white person he didn't like. The audience got it then. I certainly did.
I love all your references to TV shows from the 1970s that I also watched avidly and that contributed to my childhood understanding about racism (among many other influences). What are your thoughts on Barney Miller (not the character, but the show)?
Which groups are demeaned and marginalized by Electism? Is there a priority of caring about the impact on these groups?
John makes a compelling case on how Electism (aka CRT) demeans and marginalizes black people. He then says that he doesn't care so much about how it impacts white people.
The Jodi Shaw case at Smith is an example of CRT demeaning and marginalizing a white person. She is fighting back. Does John think this is worth caring about?
The case of Gabrielle Clark, a poor black mother of a blond hair blue eyed white boy slammed by CRT in a Las Vegas Charter School, is worth paying attention to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=solhjLMVj_I&feature=youtu.be She is fighting back. Does John think this is worth caring about?
People would of couses be seriously mistaken to think McWhorter’s main purpose is to defend white people from reverse racism or charges of racism. However, I believe many whites are sensitive to these concerns and following McWhorter for that reason, as his writings do give such folks a mental defense mechanism against the essentialist, us-versus-them attitudes of some of the new anti-racist ideologies. Coming from a black man, McWhorter buttresses their ability to say to themselves, “I am not crazy and I am not racist.”
As a black person myself, I would articulate McWhorter’s purpose (if I am not mis-reading it) as to argue that certain very specific ideologies, which many black people and other minorities do not actually hold and are arguably incoherent and counter-productive, are being promulgated as the only and only truth and being sold to well meaning people as their one and only way to be an “ally” and as the way for black people to hold white people to account. Lately, based on the recent best-sellers, it is taking the form of encouraging white people to self-identify more strongly as “ white” and with “white privilege,” “whiteness.” In other words, to embrace essentialism almost the way a hardened racist would, but with opposite intent.
This is of dubious value and a 180 from “I have a Dream.” It invites a degree of illogic, inconsistency and cognitive dissonance that can immediately confuse and eventually turn away people who are sympathetic to the problems in black america and discussions of racism. Because those who disagree reasonable fear being called racist at worst and racially “fragile” at best, this is shutting down productive conversation. Most well-meaning people will go on pretending the emperor has clothes no matter what they hear, and the reactionaries on the right side of the political spectrum will cite the more ridiculous of these trends as arguments for why we should do nothing at all to address underlying issues or to pronounce racism and bias a fairy tale. This is why it is counterproductive
If we apply this logic to a real world example, is a modern day pogrom such as the Crown Heights Riot, somehow more justifiable then the pogroms that took place in the Russian Empire because in the former example the perpetrators were "punching up"? (By the way pogroms aren't by definition state sponsored, as many of them actually were not). Are antisemitic acts perpetrated by African Americans which unfortunately are not statistically insignificant and have claimed several lives, more excusable because of the perceived power dynamics since Jews in present day US have acquired the "taint and priveledge of whiteness"?
I've been thinking a lot about the redefinition of racism since my (then) high school aged daughter dropped it on my in 2015. I can understand it and I don't completely disagree that racism always requires some aspect of punching down (the example that always pops to my mind is how milquetoast 'Cracker' is--it has no weight , but then again, that's just me who has only been called a Cracker, Honkey or White Devil a few dozen times, usually by poor knuckleheads that I feel mostly sorry for). I wonder though, if the problem here is that the power distributions aren't clear. For instance, your colleague at U fo I ( I think) that was fired because he wrote n***** and people had heart-palpitations, was clearly not the one with the power. The underlying problem with defining 'racism' as a phenomenon based in power dynamics is that you create a situation where who is racist can change one day from the next and doesn't leave us with a useful heuristic. I'd say this may be especially true because we already have class-war dynamics for describing punching-down, so why do we need more?
The Elect, as I understand the definition, are able to do what they do specifically because they have power. No?
I recommend people watch Coleman Hughes's recent interview with Shelby and Eli Steele about the Steeles' documentary "What Killed Michael Brown?" Thought-provokiNg discussion of the shifting roles of oppressor and victim in our times. Seems relevant to the question of who is punching in what direction.
I must admit to having never heard the term "neoracist" before, and thus not minding whether it stays in the subtitle or not. And the reasoning behind the decision to exclude it--it has a generally understood meaning that is not what The Elect is about--makes sense.
What I fear does not make sense is your apparent endorsement of the Elect's slogan "racism is about punching down." Other commentators have tackled this aspect of your post extremely well, even brilliantly, but I just want to add my voice to theirs in surprise and dismay--surely you don't mean that racism is only that.
Racism affects some groups more than others, of course, but it is also a universal evil, and that is the moral ground upon which the argument to end it should stand. Perhaps your book is not making that argument, but that surprises me, because without that, what philosophical or moral underpinning does it really have?
I grew up in a rough part of queens with my poor white mother. Then part of suburban Long Island with my wealth Colombian immigrant father, I live in Brooklyn now. I have a perspective shaped by a unique experience. I have to say, I really “get it” despite most people really disliking that sentiment. I used to make fun of whites for everything as recently as 4 or 5 years ago. Literally all the time. Most times not in such good spirits lol. But then I saw things that clearly crossed the line. I have maybe made 3 white jokes since then. I feel like making them now pushes conversations down a dark road literally on a dime. I saw groups of color during the riots talking about “let’s go fuck up and burn down the white neighborhood LOL”.. an attempt to organize destroying a lower middle class mixed neighborhood where my mother now currently lives and rents out 4/5ths of her own house and lives in a garage because she can’t afford it since her 3rd husband died from lung cancer. The attempt was thwarted with many police and several helicopters, Im sure you can find it if you searched for it online - or maybe not because the media is the media. My mother texting me screenshots of the attempted effort in terrified tears was certainly an experience I would never have thought I would live to see.
Even before that I felt a growing sense that my mother and my little sister were in danger when I saw anti-white rhetoric all over social media, in private amongst friends. Something is deeply off. None of my family were alive and shouldn’t have to answer for inherited guilt they do not deserve.
When I came across you, a fellow liberal and brilliant respectable human being willing to stand up against this, I like many have felt a sense of relief, brotherhood, understanding.. kindred spirits? I would go so far as to call you a hero on several occasions. You and Glen for your amazing conversations which I still enjoy. I generally still agree with everything you are saying, and I understand proportionality, but in the 21st century, seeing the kinds of horrendous things being aimed at white people (I can’t believe I’m defending white people, and I certainly don’t feel white, and I’m not even sure what the hell that would feel like), I truly feel a little stupid for getting my hopes up that someone such as yourself took this issue seriously from all directions. And no, it’s not just because you’re a black man. I don’t tend to think of things in that way. You’re just clearly brilliant and craft amazing arguments. You represent precisely the kind of values and mode of being that runs counter to the narrative that tries to destroy civil society. I’m not ignorant to your early work, I think your position makes sense. Still an awesome ally to have, and perhaps this take is the take that we need because THAT is what’s missing and it’s completely true. It is anti black in every way. But I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t fearful and upset by yet another prominent person not seeing the dark shit happening. It would have been great for someone to see what’s coming out of of people and directed at people like my poor lonely mother. It makes me legitimately sad.
"I must disappoint. I am fully on board with the idea that racism is about who is up versus down. "
You have definitely disappointed me. While, it would be obvious that a racist with more power could cause more damage than a racist with less power, it is no less a moral vice for someone with less power to be racist than someone with more power; albeit a greater moral crime may be committed by someone with more power. As was grotesquely demonstrated with regard to the Rwandan genocide, if people with less power but with deep racist sentiments acquire power, there can be horrific consequences. And when we aren't talking about political power, even individual racists who belong to a racial group with less power as a whole can inflict substantial harm on innocent people due to their racist sensibilities. A racist with a gun, albeit not capable of redlining swaths of people, can still kill. It doesn't matter if a white person is "up" in some abstract estimation of generalized racial power of their group -- the concrete power of any particular white person probably won't be protective against a bullet nor are they any more deserving of that bullet. Or -- just a racist with a twitter account can still potentially destroy an innocent person's livelihood -- whether or not they belong to the racial group with more overall aggregate political power (assuming the racial group is even conspiring together to use that power, which in the U.S. today is not occurring with regard to most white people).
While it is true that in some sense "Black racism against whites is, at least at its foundation, about resentment at being abused" -- it doesn't apply to all individual black people(it simply is not the case that today all racist black people have experienced substantial racist abuse themselves), nor does historical causation somehow absolve black people from the moral duty to develop themselves and overcome the bigotry they may have inherited from history. I am surprised you would express this sentiment when one of your biggest gripes with the "Elect" is that they portray black people as desperately fragile. It seems you still feel you must protect black people from the moral responsibility of not being racist by using the same strategy of the "The Elect" that you resent--verbal legerdemain.
"Racism punches down." Pff, it punches every direction. Down may cause more damage at times, but it is no more or less racist. There is simply more momentum when punching down. With enough force though, one can resist gravity.
It is just bizarre that you seem to be trying to separate the neoracists or the elect, or whatever we wish to call them, by racial lines. Robin Diangelo and Ibram Kendi are equally neoracists. Robin Diangelo doesn't deserve more moral admonishment than Ibram Kendi because she is white. That is exactly the ideology that they are pushing. Are you sure you aren't a member of The Elect yourself? Just forgot about your membership or are you envious of their stature in The Church?
And why would you compare George Jefferson and Archie Bunker? This isn't the 50s; isn't that a refrain you have been making? Yes, they are dated references. How about comparing Louis Farrakhan and Richard Spencer? The former is still an honored character by many neoracists and many powerful Democrats; the latter is a pariah by both political parties. You do not think black people being racist against white people can be as equally reprehensible? It must mean that you are generalizing history rather than judging individual cases. There are some clearly reprehensible instances of black people being racist against white people; one must be blind to not acknowledge that. One needn't therefore conclude that the historical scales of racism from black people to white people is therefore equal. But any individual white person isn't responsible for that scale, nor is any individual black person morally entitled to demand personal reparations for that imbalance.
I think it makes sense that your book is intended to look at how neoracists are racist toward black people, but it is ridiculous not to acknowledge that neoracists are racist against white people too. The ideology that is being pushed by those such as Diangelo and Kendi is universally racist, insofar as it contributes to the continued tribalism of people based on race, rejects moral individualism, embraces moral collectivism, and reinforces psychological barriers that people have when it comes to developing emotional bonds, trust, and respect with people who don't share their own perceived race. Unfortunately, it seems that some of that ideology still appeals to you.
Yes it is unpardonable for black people to be racist; albeit not all racism is equal. George Jefferson is not Jefferson Davis. But yet, the sin of racism requires repentance. It is not incomprehensible of course that some black people are racist. We have a history of racial hatred directed toward our ancestors, and it makes sense that our ancestors have passed down racial resentment and hatred due to that. But black people are no less morally bound to transcend irrational generational hatred than all people. That is a supremely virtuous path, and it is indeed *racist* to discourage black people from taking that path by making them agentless pawns of "community leaders" and "intellectuals". Do you take black people to be so fragile that such a a path would destroy us?
"Can black people be racist?"
Yes. Deplorably so. Suggesting they cannot is racist. Neoracist, particularly. That black people cannot be racist is the first tenet of the New Church of the Woke. And it is no doubt morally seductive to many black people just as the notion of the substitutional redemption of sins is to many humans in general. Yet, both are decadent. It seems you may just be a reformer in the church and not a true heretic.
Honestly, I would ditch the word "Elect" entirely. Because that word puts the focus on a particular group of intellectuals, it will allow many to casually dismiss the book as an expression of petty bitterness and infighting.
The central theme - that these ideas are actually racist against Black people - is far more compelling. Better to find a title that focuses on that.
I'm white and it actually had never occurred to me that neoracism would refer to black against white racism, which I agree is both more understandable and not central to the current debate. The white fragility, antiracist agenda has always struck me as offensively racist against nonwhites: the suggestions that Black people somehow can't pass tests, show up on time, or meet other social and intellectual standards, so we have to lower or take away those standards for them; that Black people are so exquisitely sensitive that their feelings have to be tiptoed around to a greater degree; and that they have so little agency that it is entirely up to white people to fix their lives/society for them (which is not to deny that whites have responsibility as well). Most of the Black people I know — and those of every other color — are a lot stronger, smarter and more ambitious than that.
Oh but I'm totally confused by the new subtitle. I keep reading it and not understanding. I might just be dumb or uninformed, but would it be too much to ask for further explanation?
The Jefferson's reference in the accompanying picture is spot on. Nothing was more hilarious than that pained smile commingled with barely concealed disgust when George Jefferson had to deal with a white person he didn't like. The audience got it then. I certainly did.
I love all your references to TV shows from the 1970s that I also watched avidly and that contributed to my childhood understanding about racism (among many other influences). What are your thoughts on Barney Miller (not the character, but the show)?
This questions seem to be:
Which groups are demeaned and marginalized by Electism? Is there a priority of caring about the impact on these groups?
John makes a compelling case on how Electism (aka CRT) demeans and marginalizes black people. He then says that he doesn't care so much about how it impacts white people.
The Jodi Shaw case at Smith is an example of CRT demeaning and marginalizing a white person. She is fighting back. Does John think this is worth caring about?
The case of Gabrielle Clark, a poor black mother of a blond hair blue eyed white boy slammed by CRT in a Las Vegas Charter School, is worth paying attention to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=solhjLMVj_I&feature=youtu.be She is fighting back. Does John think this is worth caring about?
People would of couses be seriously mistaken to think McWhorter’s main purpose is to defend white people from reverse racism or charges of racism. However, I believe many whites are sensitive to these concerns and following McWhorter for that reason, as his writings do give such folks a mental defense mechanism against the essentialist, us-versus-them attitudes of some of the new anti-racist ideologies. Coming from a black man, McWhorter buttresses their ability to say to themselves, “I am not crazy and I am not racist.”
As a black person myself, I would articulate McWhorter’s purpose (if I am not mis-reading it) as to argue that certain very specific ideologies, which many black people and other minorities do not actually hold and are arguably incoherent and counter-productive, are being promulgated as the only and only truth and being sold to well meaning people as their one and only way to be an “ally” and as the way for black people to hold white people to account. Lately, based on the recent best-sellers, it is taking the form of encouraging white people to self-identify more strongly as “ white” and with “white privilege,” “whiteness.” In other words, to embrace essentialism almost the way a hardened racist would, but with opposite intent.
This is of dubious value and a 180 from “I have a Dream.” It invites a degree of illogic, inconsistency and cognitive dissonance that can immediately confuse and eventually turn away people who are sympathetic to the problems in black america and discussions of racism. Because those who disagree reasonable fear being called racist at worst and racially “fragile” at best, this is shutting down productive conversation. Most well-meaning people will go on pretending the emperor has clothes no matter what they hear, and the reactionaries on the right side of the political spectrum will cite the more ridiculous of these trends as arguments for why we should do nothing at all to address underlying issues or to pronounce racism and bias a fairy tale. This is why it is counterproductive
If we apply this logic to a real world example, is a modern day pogrom such as the Crown Heights Riot, somehow more justifiable then the pogroms that took place in the Russian Empire because in the former example the perpetrators were "punching up"? (By the way pogroms aren't by definition state sponsored, as many of them actually were not). Are antisemitic acts perpetrated by African Americans which unfortunately are not statistically insignificant and have claimed several lives, more excusable because of the perceived power dynamics since Jews in present day US have acquired the "taint and priveledge of whiteness"?
I've been thinking a lot about the redefinition of racism since my (then) high school aged daughter dropped it on my in 2015. I can understand it and I don't completely disagree that racism always requires some aspect of punching down (the example that always pops to my mind is how milquetoast 'Cracker' is--it has no weight , but then again, that's just me who has only been called a Cracker, Honkey or White Devil a few dozen times, usually by poor knuckleheads that I feel mostly sorry for). I wonder though, if the problem here is that the power distributions aren't clear. For instance, your colleague at U fo I ( I think) that was fired because he wrote n***** and people had heart-palpitations, was clearly not the one with the power. The underlying problem with defining 'racism' as a phenomenon based in power dynamics is that you create a situation where who is racist can change one day from the next and doesn't leave us with a useful heuristic. I'd say this may be especially true because we already have class-war dynamics for describing punching-down, so why do we need more?
The Elect, as I understand the definition, are able to do what they do specifically because they have power. No?
I recommend people watch Coleman Hughes's recent interview with Shelby and Eli Steele about the Steeles' documentary "What Killed Michael Brown?" Thought-provokiNg discussion of the shifting roles of oppressor and victim in our times. Seems relevant to the question of who is punching in what direction.
I must admit to having never heard the term "neoracist" before, and thus not minding whether it stays in the subtitle or not. And the reasoning behind the decision to exclude it--it has a generally understood meaning that is not what The Elect is about--makes sense.
What I fear does not make sense is your apparent endorsement of the Elect's slogan "racism is about punching down." Other commentators have tackled this aspect of your post extremely well, even brilliantly, but I just want to add my voice to theirs in surprise and dismay--surely you don't mean that racism is only that.
Racism affects some groups more than others, of course, but it is also a universal evil, and that is the moral ground upon which the argument to end it should stand. Perhaps your book is not making that argument, but that surprises me, because without that, what philosophical or moral underpinning does it really have?
Bari Weiss has some sad news:
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/whistleblower-at-smith-college-resigns
I grew up in a rough part of queens with my poor white mother. Then part of suburban Long Island with my wealth Colombian immigrant father, I live in Brooklyn now. I have a perspective shaped by a unique experience. I have to say, I really “get it” despite most people really disliking that sentiment. I used to make fun of whites for everything as recently as 4 or 5 years ago. Literally all the time. Most times not in such good spirits lol. But then I saw things that clearly crossed the line. I have maybe made 3 white jokes since then. I feel like making them now pushes conversations down a dark road literally on a dime. I saw groups of color during the riots talking about “let’s go fuck up and burn down the white neighborhood LOL”.. an attempt to organize destroying a lower middle class mixed neighborhood where my mother now currently lives and rents out 4/5ths of her own house and lives in a garage because she can’t afford it since her 3rd husband died from lung cancer. The attempt was thwarted with many police and several helicopters, Im sure you can find it if you searched for it online - or maybe not because the media is the media. My mother texting me screenshots of the attempted effort in terrified tears was certainly an experience I would never have thought I would live to see.
Even before that I felt a growing sense that my mother and my little sister were in danger when I saw anti-white rhetoric all over social media, in private amongst friends. Something is deeply off. None of my family were alive and shouldn’t have to answer for inherited guilt they do not deserve.
When I came across you, a fellow liberal and brilliant respectable human being willing to stand up against this, I like many have felt a sense of relief, brotherhood, understanding.. kindred spirits? I would go so far as to call you a hero on several occasions. You and Glen for your amazing conversations which I still enjoy. I generally still agree with everything you are saying, and I understand proportionality, but in the 21st century, seeing the kinds of horrendous things being aimed at white people (I can’t believe I’m defending white people, and I certainly don’t feel white, and I’m not even sure what the hell that would feel like), I truly feel a little stupid for getting my hopes up that someone such as yourself took this issue seriously from all directions. And no, it’s not just because you’re a black man. I don’t tend to think of things in that way. You’re just clearly brilliant and craft amazing arguments. You represent precisely the kind of values and mode of being that runs counter to the narrative that tries to destroy civil society. I’m not ignorant to your early work, I think your position makes sense. Still an awesome ally to have, and perhaps this take is the take that we need because THAT is what’s missing and it’s completely true. It is anti black in every way. But I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t fearful and upset by yet another prominent person not seeing the dark shit happening. It would have been great for someone to see what’s coming out of of people and directed at people like my poor lonely mother. It makes me legitimately sad.
"I must disappoint. I am fully on board with the idea that racism is about who is up versus down. "
You have definitely disappointed me. While, it would be obvious that a racist with more power could cause more damage than a racist with less power, it is no less a moral vice for someone with less power to be racist than someone with more power; albeit a greater moral crime may be committed by someone with more power. As was grotesquely demonstrated with regard to the Rwandan genocide, if people with less power but with deep racist sentiments acquire power, there can be horrific consequences. And when we aren't talking about political power, even individual racists who belong to a racial group with less power as a whole can inflict substantial harm on innocent people due to their racist sensibilities. A racist with a gun, albeit not capable of redlining swaths of people, can still kill. It doesn't matter if a white person is "up" in some abstract estimation of generalized racial power of their group -- the concrete power of any particular white person probably won't be protective against a bullet nor are they any more deserving of that bullet. Or -- just a racist with a twitter account can still potentially destroy an innocent person's livelihood -- whether or not they belong to the racial group with more overall aggregate political power (assuming the racial group is even conspiring together to use that power, which in the U.S. today is not occurring with regard to most white people).
While it is true that in some sense "Black racism against whites is, at least at its foundation, about resentment at being abused" -- it doesn't apply to all individual black people(it simply is not the case that today all racist black people have experienced substantial racist abuse themselves), nor does historical causation somehow absolve black people from the moral duty to develop themselves and overcome the bigotry they may have inherited from history. I am surprised you would express this sentiment when one of your biggest gripes with the "Elect" is that they portray black people as desperately fragile. It seems you still feel you must protect black people from the moral responsibility of not being racist by using the same strategy of the "The Elect" that you resent--verbal legerdemain.
"Racism punches down." Pff, it punches every direction. Down may cause more damage at times, but it is no more or less racist. There is simply more momentum when punching down. With enough force though, one can resist gravity.
It is just bizarre that you seem to be trying to separate the neoracists or the elect, or whatever we wish to call them, by racial lines. Robin Diangelo and Ibram Kendi are equally neoracists. Robin Diangelo doesn't deserve more moral admonishment than Ibram Kendi because she is white. That is exactly the ideology that they are pushing. Are you sure you aren't a member of The Elect yourself? Just forgot about your membership or are you envious of their stature in The Church?
And why would you compare George Jefferson and Archie Bunker? This isn't the 50s; isn't that a refrain you have been making? Yes, they are dated references. How about comparing Louis Farrakhan and Richard Spencer? The former is still an honored character by many neoracists and many powerful Democrats; the latter is a pariah by both political parties. You do not think black people being racist against white people can be as equally reprehensible? It must mean that you are generalizing history rather than judging individual cases. There are some clearly reprehensible instances of black people being racist against white people; one must be blind to not acknowledge that. One needn't therefore conclude that the historical scales of racism from black people to white people is therefore equal. But any individual white person isn't responsible for that scale, nor is any individual black person morally entitled to demand personal reparations for that imbalance.
I think it makes sense that your book is intended to look at how neoracists are racist toward black people, but it is ridiculous not to acknowledge that neoracists are racist against white people too. The ideology that is being pushed by those such as Diangelo and Kendi is universally racist, insofar as it contributes to the continued tribalism of people based on race, rejects moral individualism, embraces moral collectivism, and reinforces psychological barriers that people have when it comes to developing emotional bonds, trust, and respect with people who don't share their own perceived race. Unfortunately, it seems that some of that ideology still appeals to you.
Yes it is unpardonable for black people to be racist; albeit not all racism is equal. George Jefferson is not Jefferson Davis. But yet, the sin of racism requires repentance. It is not incomprehensible of course that some black people are racist. We have a history of racial hatred directed toward our ancestors, and it makes sense that our ancestors have passed down racial resentment and hatred due to that. But black people are no less morally bound to transcend irrational generational hatred than all people. That is a supremely virtuous path, and it is indeed *racist* to discourage black people from taking that path by making them agentless pawns of "community leaders" and "intellectuals". Do you take black people to be so fragile that such a a path would destroy us?
"Can black people be racist?"
Yes. Deplorably so. Suggesting they cannot is racist. Neoracist, particularly. That black people cannot be racist is the first tenet of the New Church of the Woke. And it is no doubt morally seductive to many black people just as the notion of the substitutional redemption of sins is to many humans in general. Yet, both are decadent. It seems you may just be a reformer in the church and not a true heretic.
You are one very brave soul! More power to you.
Honestly, I would ditch the word "Elect" entirely. Because that word puts the focus on a particular group of intellectuals, it will allow many to casually dismiss the book as an expression of petty bitterness and infighting.
The central theme - that these ideas are actually racist against Black people - is far more compelling. Better to find a title that focuses on that.
/$.02 from the peanut gallery.
I'm white and it actually had never occurred to me that neoracism would refer to black against white racism, which I agree is both more understandable and not central to the current debate. The white fragility, antiracist agenda has always struck me as offensively racist against nonwhites: the suggestions that Black people somehow can't pass tests, show up on time, or meet other social and intellectual standards, so we have to lower or take away those standards for them; that Black people are so exquisitely sensitive that their feelings have to be tiptoed around to a greater degree; and that they have so little agency that it is entirely up to white people to fix their lives/society for them (which is not to deny that whites have responsibility as well). Most of the Black people I know — and those of every other color — are a lot stronger, smarter and more ambitious than that.
I apologize, but I had to unsubscribe after the "racism is down" line.
Oh but I'm totally confused by the new subtitle. I keep reading it and not understanding. I might just be dumb or uninformed, but would it be too much to ask for further explanation?