Racism is never okay, and no side should be excused for it - not because it harms those who are hated, but because the hate festers and harms the hater. It’s okay to understand where the racism comes from, but the racist should always be encouraged to fight back against those negative feelings.
This, of course, only goes for those who are actually racist, not those who are supposedly condemned to it by skin color.
Another point comes to mind: if racism does harm to the racist, does that not mean that the Elect are encouraging black people to harm themselves by completely exonerating them of racism?
This articles raises suspicions that you're a pretty alright guy. No doubt, it's a nightmare navigating your audiences, but how refreshing to find someone who panders to no one. As the left needs your criticism, so the right. Cheers.
It’s really made me think, and sometimes I’m not sure what the terms “racist” and “racism” really mean anymore the way they get thrown around.
I also wonder why we haven’t attached the same amount of malice towards the term “prejudism” that we have to “racism.” Growing up it was “prejudice” that I was taught was evil (similar to your description in the article). It’s also far more encompassing than “racist” as it tackles issues of prejudice surround gender, sexual orientation, career choice, and even politics (ie being prejudiced towards someone who votes republican or democrat and thinking that means you “know” their opinion, without nuance, on every single issue. This is increasingly becoming a problem in a tribalistic hyper-polarized society.)
I actually kind of wonder if using prejudism in this sense would allow us to then reserve “racism” and “racist” for a definition more along the lines of structural racism. Structural racism is also morally wrong, but lacks the personal element and vindictiveness of prejudism, and a racist in this term would be someone who supports this power structure. We should still try to tackle structural racism and essentially level playing fields, but in this sense, at least to me, being a “racist” loses a certain amount of its “bite” - you would not apply the term to the jerk online using horrible “racist” expletives (that guy would be then described as “prejudiced” or perhaps more simply just a jerk or other expletive originally used for the human orifice involved in defecation.). This definition also incorporates the fact that “racism punches down” which I think is true, particularly with structural racism. But while I’m all for dismantling structural racism, using this definition to me doesn’t connotate quite as much malevolence to the person who may hold up what some might perceive as “racist policies” as when applied to the neo-nazi. Particularly since I think it can be in fact quite unclear as to which policy will in fact end up being the least racist, or at least do the most good in terms of dismantling structural racism! Is the most “anti-racist” policy in fact a left wing policy supported by Kendi? Or will that policy in fact exacerbate structural racism or racial views, and could it in fact be the policy put forth by a conservative like Glenn Loury that in fact does the most good in dismantling racist structures, meaning that it is in fact Loury who is the “anti-racist”?
Reading “How to be an anti-racist” this summer I almost had to wonder if this is what Dr. Ibram Kendi was trying to do with his definition of racism and racist. Particularly where he talked about how you can be racist one minute in terms of the policies you support and then non-racist another minute.
If this were true “racist” becomes not a dirty name anymore, in which case when Kendi uses that term online or in his books against McWhorter, it is not used as an insult.
I have wondered if this is what Kendi has meant when he suggests he is misportrayed by McWhorter or Coleman Hughes.
But I find this interpretation of Kendi’s writings difficult to reconcile considering the other evidence I’m witnessing. For one, I find it hard to reconcile that interpretation with the fact he has allied himself with DiAngelo,* he doesn’t seem to call out the vindictiveness and malice with which his followers seem to apply the term “racist” and his take on cancellations involving the term racist. And if racism is something that is in a state of flux based on which policies you are supporting, could you ever be “a racist” and as such why would you ever apply that term?
So I find myself a bit confused as to which definition of racism Kendi is using.
*reading “White fragility” this summer I had challenges reconciling that work with chapter 10 of “How to be an anti-racist” as she clearly seemed to think she knew what my unconscious biases were on the sole basis of my skin colour, despite me growing up in a different generation in a different country and my exposure to what it meant to be black were my mom’s best friend’s academic husband (a university professor), the best chess playing kid in my class being black, and Healthcliffe Huxtable (obstetrician), Clair Huxtable (lawyer) and Uncle Phil (lawyer)
were the portrayals of black parents I saw on TV. Reading her assumptions of what my unconscious biases to be just seemed out of tune with what I grew up with, particularly since I’m roughly a generation younger. Or maybe I’m just some fragile person with the wrong colour skin.
I'd still say your mother was somewhat racist, yes, but for completely understandable reasons, and not without cause. A "yes but so what" kind of racism. Not the kind of racism that carries much moral importance. I'm sure she was still a lovely person and I wouldn't think one jot less of her because of it.
I am wondering if you are going to talk about "light" racism vs "white" racism. If you are Black or have true Black friends you know what I'm talking about. And. Why doesn't The Elect target the male Black celebrities/athletes who choose white mates over bright talented beautiful Black women? Jes saying if you are targeting go after all those who are complicit.
I think racism refers to the belief in the superiority of a (your) race over another (others). It is an ideology that began in service to the economic and political repression of a minority group, in the US case, mainly of blacks through slavery, Jim Crow etc. and also is the key justification of colonialism. It does not mean 'disliking' or 'having a bias against' a group of people. It serves real, material repression. And it lingers as a major factor in racial interactions today. I just don't see an African American disliking whites or criticizing a world view among certain whites as evidence of 'racism'. It is a false equivalency. In the US, since Reconstruction the right has reflexively spread fear that black political power threatens to become black supremacy, when in fact, from Reconstruction (when Blacks were in the majority in several states) to borough elections in Bed-Stye (1980s), Harlem, Atlanta or Oakland meant majority rule.
I didn’t mean to say such an incident has no historical context. Of course it does, I thought that might go without saying in this forum. Remove the race difference, bullying remains. As remarked the traditional sexism is part of it all. My hope is that such hostile behaviors involving race do not elicit hatred but are seen as part of a legacy of unspeakable oppression even as they are seen as wrong. So I suppose that is giving the behavior a pass, not exoneration but lucid appraisal of where we find ourselves in history.
I think we need to uncouple racism and power. They are obviously related in the context of the history of the USA and slavery, but you can have power without being a racist and be a racist without having power. If we limit our analysis to broad categories of people and stereotype these people as wealthy and racist or poor and victimized, then we simply crush the social dynamics that exist in complex situations in which it is very hard to determine who is up and down. I travel in a number of contexts in which, in some ways the legacy of colonialism is obvious in regard to how many "white" people or "Asian" people or "Jewish" people have higher and better paying positions, or how many men do. But I also travel in contexts in which none of this holds true. I also travel in contexts where the traditional roles have been flipped. I agree with Jeff Peoples's comments below. And I think agree with McWhorter's statements (elsewhere) that black people - any people - are capable of noticing degrees between left and right, black and white, and up and down. Punching down has some energy as shorthand for a general situation, but runs out of steam when you start paying more attention.
I hate to push back because I actually agree with you, but the more you discuss it, the less I believe for some reason. The show about an older bigoted guy who has a similarly bigoted son who has half the reason for being bigoted actually sounds interesting.
Mr. Mcwhorter, I love your work. You, Mr. Loury and Mr. Hughes remind that I am not insane. Having said that I'm not sure I fully agree with this post. You are making an important distinction between having a reason to over-generalize in your dislike of a group and those not having a reason. But I'm not sure how that plays out in real life. If some white guy grows up as a minority in an inner city school where his "lived experience" (for lack of a better term) is that blacks are violent and aggressive and yet always "complaining about racism", and proceeds to go around assuming that is the case for all - or most - blacks. Is that any less reprehensible? Maybe you are arguing that it is less reprehensible, which would be consistent and I misunderstood. I still think it might be best to just not over-generalize. I would not consider your mom to be over-generalizing since it seems reasonable for her to assume that MOST white people had some kind of issues with her race at the time.
John, two points. 1) You certainly demonstrate the need for making distinctions when it comes to working our way through the many knots in our racial perceiving and thinking. This is much needed. Thank you.
2) My main point might seem to be nitpicking, but I don't think so. It has to do with your phrase "it’s always easier to nurture a sense of community against an enemy." It's an accurate observation up to a point, but that's because of our current limitations (severe in many ways) in creating structures for group-to-group cooperation. However, standing by itself it leaves the impression that this is normal for humans rather than a failure of our still evolving culture. Group-to-group cooperation is essential for reducing in-group self-centeredness and violence as well as group-group to polarization. That to me seems to be the larger context in which our various racisms are situated.
Thanks so much for your recent work in this area. You have been providing me much needed clarity.
Again, I disagree. We all give some leeway for ignorance or bad experience. But that usually leads to distrust, not hate. And the same thing can be said for a White person who has been victimized by multiple criminals who happened to be Black. A sense of distrust might develop. Just like your Mom’s. Context always matters. But those are cultural allusions. White society was racist at the time so a distrust of White people because the chances were high they partook in thar society is understandable. But if she believed all Whites were innately evil, her belief would have still been wrong. You are conflating cultural biases with racial prejudice, as in the belief of innate racial differences. And worse that one is innately worse than the other because of it.
I have been thinking a lot about the difference between racial prejudice due to life experience with a particular racial group and racism, because of my experiences working in immigrant communities and married to a Mexican. I find most immigrants of a lower socio-economic status do not like African-Americans and are afraid of them. (There is a social heirarchy based on skin color in Latino countries, but that’s another essay). I initially believed that this was due to them absorbing the cultural attitudes they encountered when they came here or the news media propaganda. Instead, I have learned that it is based on their experiences since arriving to this country. They often move into the same neighborhood as poor blacks and are regularly verbally or physically assaulted in the street. At the same time, many black people in these neighborhoods find immigrants, especially Latino, to be a threat to them for jobs and resources. These seems to be justified racial prejudices based on their realities. It also seems like an opportunity for American black people to punch down as they have more power here as English speaking citizens than Latino immigrants do. It speaks to what you have talked about that an oppressed group can also be the oppressor when given the opportunity. In today’s climate, there is often talk of a unified brown and black people, but I don’t know if this exists outside of more elite circles of brown and black people (college educated). Down on the streets, they do not see themselves as one group against the white person. Each has a unique relationship with the white majority (for lack of a better term). It’s all more complex than people realize.
It seems to me that whenever someone tries to pin down exactly what is or is not racism, punching up or down, evil, etc, the concepts start to lose their traction and fall apart. It is a bit how I think a theoretical physicist feels when trying to apply general relativity in a black hole. If we are to judge people regarding their racism, it is difficult to see how we can claim some have reasons and others don't. Surely all have reasons, otherwise they would not be racist. We can think to apply the "evil" adjective to those whose reasons we think would not be enough to make us racist. But then again, our judgement might be clouded by our lack of imagination and relatedness.
I do not see a path forward on this. I would say leaving the judgement of evil aside is more helpful than not when discussing racism. I do not see how contempt for other races—to be precise, contempt for individuals of other races—has more upsides than downsides for the workings of a society. At this level, therefore, racism should be condemned irrespective of whether one is punching up or down.
Yet I don’t think it should be equally condemned. In-group out-group dynamics can be detrimental for a peaceful society, but these dynamics cause more harm—actual, real harm—when done by a majority with power. Strengthening one’s network and restricting access to outsiders will tend to benefit white people more than black people, for instance. Condemned but not equally condemned, however, runs counter to our moral intuitions which are often ruled by binary approximations.
If we must choose a binary approach, which I don’t think we do, which should it be? I would say condemning racist sentiment—not saying that people who harbour this sentiment are beyond the pale—irrespective of whether it is punching up or down is probably more constructive. Even racism towards majority groups can contribute to consolidate these racial dynamics rather than advancing towards better social cohesion.
PS: Thanks for your writing, John, it is truly inspiring and stimulating.
To understand is to forgive, overlook, but not condone?....
And if the wrong action is a hate crime?
Surely that can’t be given a pass.
But as I write this, it occurs to me how rare In reality such a hate act is,
or seems to me to be, while the opposite (white hate) examples abound....
Sure, negative attitudes are harbored against white folks. Now that is understandable. Harder to understand Is the good will and generosity in evidence. Is a new word needed? Why not call a thing by its name, if only the name fits. To call an act racist —or a person, is a harsh, bitter accusation/ designation. It makes sense to consider very carefully the use of such a potent word.
I find it highly interesting, that so many commentators here - like me - completely disagree with John McWorther's position he outlined in this particular post and express their disagreement by referring to first principles.
The first thing, that make me positive about it, is that not only intellectuals and elite educated are thinking this way, but all kinds of people principally reject an excuse for racist rhetoric, not because they are bound by "white fragility", but because they know that circumstances are not an excuse and more importantly it doesn't solve the problem. What racism does is to make inequality "natural", i.e. a part of the social structure. If I attribute to "whiteness" a natural place inside the social order, then that is what racism constitutes. if "whites" are condemned to be racist, then "race" is the medium in which the natural, biological, evolutionary fate of people are decided.
As I argued in my first post, the Elect is trying to establish a natural inequality between the "races" (which it needs as term for naturalising inequality) to make it work into favour for POC. The constant dehumanization, devaluation and demeaning rhetoric, how "whites" are, behave, cannot change, are totally corrupted and in principle unable to reflect their own position, is nothing else than a reverse scheme which mirrors how slaveholders and segregationists constructed black people over the centuries to justify their exclusion and slavery. It is of course understandable, but does it solve any problem? No, of course not. It is not there to solve a problem, it is there to satisfy a thirst for power some people want to have.
When Michael Che makes his joke that he is guessing only the "Jewish half" is vaccinated in Israel, then the power plus prejudice formula is satisfied. First it is an outright lie which can be easily debunked, but that's not the point. Michael Che is an anti-Semite who hates Jews and likes to feel his power that he can hurt them. Jews were always the first target when it came to identity a scapegoat. And Michael Che can always point to the fact that Jews are a "race", which is intrinsically white. And that his own "race" is an excuse for everything one can do to others.
One argument which mirrors a wider perspective among the readers is:
To reject racism and racial attributes in principle, no matter what the circumstances are (contrary to John McWorthers post), because racism can only be abandoned, not revenged.
Racism is never okay, and no side should be excused for it - not because it harms those who are hated, but because the hate festers and harms the hater. It’s okay to understand where the racism comes from, but the racist should always be encouraged to fight back against those negative feelings.
This, of course, only goes for those who are actually racist, not those who are supposedly condemned to it by skin color.
Another point comes to mind: if racism does harm to the racist, does that not mean that the Elect are encouraging black people to harm themselves by completely exonerating them of racism?
This articles raises suspicions that you're a pretty alright guy. No doubt, it's a nightmare navigating your audiences, but how refreshing to find someone who panders to no one. As the left needs your criticism, so the right. Cheers.
I really appreciated your article in the Atlantic in June 2019 regarding the issues with the definition of “racism” and “prejudism.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/racism-concept-change/594526/
It’s really made me think, and sometimes I’m not sure what the terms “racist” and “racism” really mean anymore the way they get thrown around.
I also wonder why we haven’t attached the same amount of malice towards the term “prejudism” that we have to “racism.” Growing up it was “prejudice” that I was taught was evil (similar to your description in the article). It’s also far more encompassing than “racist” as it tackles issues of prejudice surround gender, sexual orientation, career choice, and even politics (ie being prejudiced towards someone who votes republican or democrat and thinking that means you “know” their opinion, without nuance, on every single issue. This is increasingly becoming a problem in a tribalistic hyper-polarized society.)
I actually kind of wonder if using prejudism in this sense would allow us to then reserve “racism” and “racist” for a definition more along the lines of structural racism. Structural racism is also morally wrong, but lacks the personal element and vindictiveness of prejudism, and a racist in this term would be someone who supports this power structure. We should still try to tackle structural racism and essentially level playing fields, but in this sense, at least to me, being a “racist” loses a certain amount of its “bite” - you would not apply the term to the jerk online using horrible “racist” expletives (that guy would be then described as “prejudiced” or perhaps more simply just a jerk or other expletive originally used for the human orifice involved in defecation.). This definition also incorporates the fact that “racism punches down” which I think is true, particularly with structural racism. But while I’m all for dismantling structural racism, using this definition to me doesn’t connotate quite as much malevolence to the person who may hold up what some might perceive as “racist policies” as when applied to the neo-nazi. Particularly since I think it can be in fact quite unclear as to which policy will in fact end up being the least racist, or at least do the most good in terms of dismantling structural racism! Is the most “anti-racist” policy in fact a left wing policy supported by Kendi? Or will that policy in fact exacerbate structural racism or racial views, and could it in fact be the policy put forth by a conservative like Glenn Loury that in fact does the most good in dismantling racist structures, meaning that it is in fact Loury who is the “anti-racist”?
Reading “How to be an anti-racist” this summer I almost had to wonder if this is what Dr. Ibram Kendi was trying to do with his definition of racism and racist. Particularly where he talked about how you can be racist one minute in terms of the policies you support and then non-racist another minute.
If this were true “racist” becomes not a dirty name anymore, in which case when Kendi uses that term online or in his books against McWhorter, it is not used as an insult.
I have wondered if this is what Kendi has meant when he suggests he is misportrayed by McWhorter or Coleman Hughes.
But I find this interpretation of Kendi’s writings difficult to reconcile considering the other evidence I’m witnessing. For one, I find it hard to reconcile that interpretation with the fact he has allied himself with DiAngelo,* he doesn’t seem to call out the vindictiveness and malice with which his followers seem to apply the term “racist” and his take on cancellations involving the term racist. And if racism is something that is in a state of flux based on which policies you are supporting, could you ever be “a racist” and as such why would you ever apply that term?
So I find myself a bit confused as to which definition of racism Kendi is using.
*reading “White fragility” this summer I had challenges reconciling that work with chapter 10 of “How to be an anti-racist” as she clearly seemed to think she knew what my unconscious biases were on the sole basis of my skin colour, despite me growing up in a different generation in a different country and my exposure to what it meant to be black were my mom’s best friend’s academic husband (a university professor), the best chess playing kid in my class being black, and Healthcliffe Huxtable (obstetrician), Clair Huxtable (lawyer) and Uncle Phil (lawyer)
were the portrayals of black parents I saw on TV. Reading her assumptions of what my unconscious biases to be just seemed out of tune with what I grew up with, particularly since I’m roughly a generation younger. Or maybe I’m just some fragile person with the wrong colour skin.
I'd still say your mother was somewhat racist, yes, but for completely understandable reasons, and not without cause. A "yes but so what" kind of racism. Not the kind of racism that carries much moral importance. I'm sure she was still a lovely person and I wouldn't think one jot less of her because of it.
I am wondering if you are going to talk about "light" racism vs "white" racism. If you are Black or have true Black friends you know what I'm talking about. And. Why doesn't The Elect target the male Black celebrities/athletes who choose white mates over bright talented beautiful Black women? Jes saying if you are targeting go after all those who are complicit.
I think racism refers to the belief in the superiority of a (your) race over another (others). It is an ideology that began in service to the economic and political repression of a minority group, in the US case, mainly of blacks through slavery, Jim Crow etc. and also is the key justification of colonialism. It does not mean 'disliking' or 'having a bias against' a group of people. It serves real, material repression. And it lingers as a major factor in racial interactions today. I just don't see an African American disliking whites or criticizing a world view among certain whites as evidence of 'racism'. It is a false equivalency. In the US, since Reconstruction the right has reflexively spread fear that black political power threatens to become black supremacy, when in fact, from Reconstruction (when Blacks were in the majority in several states) to borough elections in Bed-Stye (1980s), Harlem, Atlanta or Oakland meant majority rule.
I didn’t mean to say such an incident has no historical context. Of course it does, I thought that might go without saying in this forum. Remove the race difference, bullying remains. As remarked the traditional sexism is part of it all. My hope is that such hostile behaviors involving race do not elicit hatred but are seen as part of a legacy of unspeakable oppression even as they are seen as wrong. So I suppose that is giving the behavior a pass, not exoneration but lucid appraisal of where we find ourselves in history.
I think we need to uncouple racism and power. They are obviously related in the context of the history of the USA and slavery, but you can have power without being a racist and be a racist without having power. If we limit our analysis to broad categories of people and stereotype these people as wealthy and racist or poor and victimized, then we simply crush the social dynamics that exist in complex situations in which it is very hard to determine who is up and down. I travel in a number of contexts in which, in some ways the legacy of colonialism is obvious in regard to how many "white" people or "Asian" people or "Jewish" people have higher and better paying positions, or how many men do. But I also travel in contexts in which none of this holds true. I also travel in contexts where the traditional roles have been flipped. I agree with Jeff Peoples's comments below. And I think agree with McWhorter's statements (elsewhere) that black people - any people - are capable of noticing degrees between left and right, black and white, and up and down. Punching down has some energy as shorthand for a general situation, but runs out of steam when you start paying more attention.
Isn't the word bigotry?
I hate to push back because I actually agree with you, but the more you discuss it, the less I believe for some reason. The show about an older bigoted guy who has a similarly bigoted son who has half the reason for being bigoted actually sounds interesting.
Mr. Mcwhorter, I love your work. You, Mr. Loury and Mr. Hughes remind that I am not insane. Having said that I'm not sure I fully agree with this post. You are making an important distinction between having a reason to over-generalize in your dislike of a group and those not having a reason. But I'm not sure how that plays out in real life. If some white guy grows up as a minority in an inner city school where his "lived experience" (for lack of a better term) is that blacks are violent and aggressive and yet always "complaining about racism", and proceeds to go around assuming that is the case for all - or most - blacks. Is that any less reprehensible? Maybe you are arguing that it is less reprehensible, which would be consistent and I misunderstood. I still think it might be best to just not over-generalize. I would not consider your mom to be over-generalizing since it seems reasonable for her to assume that MOST white people had some kind of issues with her race at the time.
John, two points. 1) You certainly demonstrate the need for making distinctions when it comes to working our way through the many knots in our racial perceiving and thinking. This is much needed. Thank you.
2) My main point might seem to be nitpicking, but I don't think so. It has to do with your phrase "it’s always easier to nurture a sense of community against an enemy." It's an accurate observation up to a point, but that's because of our current limitations (severe in many ways) in creating structures for group-to-group cooperation. However, standing by itself it leaves the impression that this is normal for humans rather than a failure of our still evolving culture. Group-to-group cooperation is essential for reducing in-group self-centeredness and violence as well as group-group to polarization. That to me seems to be the larger context in which our various racisms are situated.
Thanks so much for your recent work in this area. You have been providing me much needed clarity.
Again, I disagree. We all give some leeway for ignorance or bad experience. But that usually leads to distrust, not hate. And the same thing can be said for a White person who has been victimized by multiple criminals who happened to be Black. A sense of distrust might develop. Just like your Mom’s. Context always matters. But those are cultural allusions. White society was racist at the time so a distrust of White people because the chances were high they partook in thar society is understandable. But if she believed all Whites were innately evil, her belief would have still been wrong. You are conflating cultural biases with racial prejudice, as in the belief of innate racial differences. And worse that one is innately worse than the other because of it.
I have been thinking a lot about the difference between racial prejudice due to life experience with a particular racial group and racism, because of my experiences working in immigrant communities and married to a Mexican. I find most immigrants of a lower socio-economic status do not like African-Americans and are afraid of them. (There is a social heirarchy based on skin color in Latino countries, but that’s another essay). I initially believed that this was due to them absorbing the cultural attitudes they encountered when they came here or the news media propaganda. Instead, I have learned that it is based on their experiences since arriving to this country. They often move into the same neighborhood as poor blacks and are regularly verbally or physically assaulted in the street. At the same time, many black people in these neighborhoods find immigrants, especially Latino, to be a threat to them for jobs and resources. These seems to be justified racial prejudices based on their realities. It also seems like an opportunity for American black people to punch down as they have more power here as English speaking citizens than Latino immigrants do. It speaks to what you have talked about that an oppressed group can also be the oppressor when given the opportunity. In today’s climate, there is often talk of a unified brown and black people, but I don’t know if this exists outside of more elite circles of brown and black people (college educated). Down on the streets, they do not see themselves as one group against the white person. Each has a unique relationship with the white majority (for lack of a better term). It’s all more complex than people realize.
It seems to me that whenever someone tries to pin down exactly what is or is not racism, punching up or down, evil, etc, the concepts start to lose their traction and fall apart. It is a bit how I think a theoretical physicist feels when trying to apply general relativity in a black hole. If we are to judge people regarding their racism, it is difficult to see how we can claim some have reasons and others don't. Surely all have reasons, otherwise they would not be racist. We can think to apply the "evil" adjective to those whose reasons we think would not be enough to make us racist. But then again, our judgement might be clouded by our lack of imagination and relatedness.
I do not see a path forward on this. I would say leaving the judgement of evil aside is more helpful than not when discussing racism. I do not see how contempt for other races—to be precise, contempt for individuals of other races—has more upsides than downsides for the workings of a society. At this level, therefore, racism should be condemned irrespective of whether one is punching up or down.
Yet I don’t think it should be equally condemned. In-group out-group dynamics can be detrimental for a peaceful society, but these dynamics cause more harm—actual, real harm—when done by a majority with power. Strengthening one’s network and restricting access to outsiders will tend to benefit white people more than black people, for instance. Condemned but not equally condemned, however, runs counter to our moral intuitions which are often ruled by binary approximations.
If we must choose a binary approach, which I don’t think we do, which should it be? I would say condemning racist sentiment—not saying that people who harbour this sentiment are beyond the pale—irrespective of whether it is punching up or down is probably more constructive. Even racism towards majority groups can contribute to consolidate these racial dynamics rather than advancing towards better social cohesion.
PS: Thanks for your writing, John, it is truly inspiring and stimulating.
Now that the syllogism has been summoned—
If black boys bully a small blonde white girl,
that is understandable in historical context.
If a wrong act is understandable, it gets a pass.
Therefore the above bullying gets a pass.
My question is what does it mean to get a pass.
To understand is to forgive, overlook, but not condone?....
And if the wrong action is a hate crime?
Surely that can’t be given a pass.
But as I write this, it occurs to me how rare In reality such a hate act is,
or seems to me to be, while the opposite (white hate) examples abound....
Sure, negative attitudes are harbored against white folks. Now that is understandable. Harder to understand Is the good will and generosity in evidence. Is a new word needed? Why not call a thing by its name, if only the name fits. To call an act racist —or a person, is a harsh, bitter accusation/ designation. It makes sense to consider very carefully the use of such a potent word.
I find it highly interesting, that so many commentators here - like me - completely disagree with John McWorther's position he outlined in this particular post and express their disagreement by referring to first principles.
The first thing, that make me positive about it, is that not only intellectuals and elite educated are thinking this way, but all kinds of people principally reject an excuse for racist rhetoric, not because they are bound by "white fragility", but because they know that circumstances are not an excuse and more importantly it doesn't solve the problem. What racism does is to make inequality "natural", i.e. a part of the social structure. If I attribute to "whiteness" a natural place inside the social order, then that is what racism constitutes. if "whites" are condemned to be racist, then "race" is the medium in which the natural, biological, evolutionary fate of people are decided.
As I argued in my first post, the Elect is trying to establish a natural inequality between the "races" (which it needs as term for naturalising inequality) to make it work into favour for POC. The constant dehumanization, devaluation and demeaning rhetoric, how "whites" are, behave, cannot change, are totally corrupted and in principle unable to reflect their own position, is nothing else than a reverse scheme which mirrors how slaveholders and segregationists constructed black people over the centuries to justify their exclusion and slavery. It is of course understandable, but does it solve any problem? No, of course not. It is not there to solve a problem, it is there to satisfy a thirst for power some people want to have.
When Michael Che makes his joke that he is guessing only the "Jewish half" is vaccinated in Israel, then the power plus prejudice formula is satisfied. First it is an outright lie which can be easily debunked, but that's not the point. Michael Che is an anti-Semite who hates Jews and likes to feel his power that he can hurt them. Jews were always the first target when it came to identity a scapegoat. And Michael Che can always point to the fact that Jews are a "race", which is intrinsically white. And that his own "race" is an excuse for everything one can do to others.
One argument which mirrors a wider perspective among the readers is:
To reject racism and racial attributes in principle, no matter what the circumstances are (contrary to John McWorthers post), because racism can only be abandoned, not revenged.