I am a mixed race 36 year old male living and working as a professional dancer in Los Angeles. I’ve never really felt oppressed but I have had some instances that could be attributed to my race but also my attitude (I’ve been told I don’t speak well to people and I still don’t know what that is about) nonetheless my talent, dedication and persistence of achieving that which I set out to achieve hasn’t stopped me. I see the good and bad in the New Anti-Racism cultural shift. I for one don’t want or need approval. I think it is a disservice to everyone involved to need approval from. At any rate I am very much enjoying continuing to learn and think, reading your work and listing to your talks especially on Glenn Loury YouTube show Bloggingheads.tv I’m also into Colman Hughes and Sam Harris. I’ve always been a thinker but have struggled in academia especially when I was young which is one reason I sometimes side with Anti-racism on some of the school things I believe brains develop at different speeds. Things I couldn’t get when I was young in school I can understand now and had it not been for my talent as a dancer I would have failed solely because I couldn’t understand the material in the time that it needed to be understood. I don’t think people should be “punished” for that. There definitely needs to be changes and I am a little interested and intrigued by where this all could take us. But I do fear if could be for the worse. Thank you John for your intellect you are incredibly inspiring and I love hearing you speak. It’s so concise and witty and full of intellect. Brilliantly fun to witness!
I watch Fox News AND listen to NPR AND read The Atlantic and read The Claremont Review of Books AND National Review. So I hope, John, I might qualify as one for whom you are writing this book. Yes, I'm a conservative, and I was in college in the late 1960s, so in a sense it doesn't take much to convince me of the wickedness of this new religion of antiracism. But your insights and logic help me to a better understanding of the phenomena. I would encourage you to go on Fox News programs such as Tucker Carlson. It's important that even unsophisticated conservatives achieve some deeper understanding of The Elect, and Tucker will give you that opportunity.
Saying “anti” twice in the title just doesn’t work. If the term “neoracist” was taken to mean something the author doesn’t intend, then make your intent known in the title. “How anti racist dogma fosters neoracist action that harms Black people and threatens progressive America.” Idk, that’s terrible too. Titles are hard!!!
Charges of racism pretty much roll off my back. Yes, I "fail" the implicit association test, but I would also fail it if it was about ageism (in both directions), ableism, sexism, fatism and probably a lot of other "isms." I'm an old lady myself, but I often have very uncharitable thoughts about other old women that I pass on the street. I know that if I struck up a conversation with one of these people, I'd quickly start seeing her as an individual person and the stereotypes would melt away. Generally when I notice my implicit associations acting up, I replace them with more realistic and less boring ideas that come from my actual life experience.
What shames me is if I forget myself and say something hurtful and disrespectful to another person. So my stance these days is not to worry about my racism, but instead to try to collect the "micro-aggressions" that I might ignorantly commit‒ in the same way that I collect cultural dos and don'ts before I travel to a new country, or the way that I remember that certain pronouncements might be wounding to a friend. (Thank God I'm retired and not in an academic or work setting where people are walking on eggs every moment. As it is, I'm girding up to return to in-person volunteering amongst the Woke.)
For me, racism is not about all the thoughts and feelings we have roiling around in our brains, because we're all just human and those thoughts are there. It's about what we intentionally choose to believe and what we try to convince others to believe. True racists try to convince others of their viewpoints and to motivate others to act on their racist beliefs.
My path through life includes a well-established habit of self-examination. Since I think in the categories of Christianity ("..for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God") I accept my sinful nature and do my best not to live it out. Unfortunately, Christianity began to addresses tribalism only in the last couple of centuries. It appears rarely in the Bible: in a couple of New Testament stories that involve Samaritans, Paul's outreach to the Gentiles, and possibly the story of Ruth. Tribalism didn't make it into the Seven Deadly Sins.
This omission may explain to some extent the Right's deep defensiveness about being called racist by the Left. This is a taproot of the polarization that's the most deadly threat to our democracy. (Sorry guys, racism and the Elect are not my ultimate concern, except to the extent that they aggravate the great American schism.) My suspicion is that people who tend to be conservative are aware of their "implicit racial associations" but are placed so deeply on the defensive by the Left that their only response is to get mad, circle the wagons, and tune in to Fox. Their churches haven't gotten around to preaching how to approach one's own racism with repentance, forgiveness, charity and love. In the meantime our immense political and economic systems keep the poor and powerless compliant and distracted by making sure they're afraid of the other "tribe."
I am a biracial (asian and white) woman, grew up in a foreign country, moved here in my teens, and STILL was somehow blissfully unaware that I was “oppressed”, or even that my non-whiteness was supposed to be some sort of “problem”, until I went to my very expensive liberal arts college and was informed by some of my fellow woke students that I was simply “unaware” of my own oppression. When I disagreed, they told me I was, in so many words, stupid and to shut up. That is probably the first time I have ever actually felt oppressed. Not to date myself, but this was back in the 2000s, so I guess that expensive liberal arts school was just a bit ahead of the curve. Oh, and when I argued with one of them about the wisdom and appropriateness her plan to intentionally start a campus “race war” to get attention, she slapped me in the face. An actual slap, with a hand. That was also the first time I’d ever been hit. And this was not an argument about left vs. right, we were (and probably still are) all card-carrying Democrats. That division does not seem to be the salient one, with these people. It was such an odd moment that it laid bare the degree to which performative social justice is possibly a product of a society that has turned having a grievance into a form of currency, and the particular narcissism of obsessing over and nurturing one’s grievances into a virtue. And then, subsequently, social media culture took that narcissism and monetized it by essentially selling us to ourselves.
Is it reasonable to distinguish between the laity and the clergy regarding The Elect? I'm hoping there are many who seem like regular Sunday church attendees that would think more critically if they took time to consider the issue.
There's the high priests spreading the gospel truth, Robin Diangelo, Ta-Nahesi Coates, etc. There are lesser clergy, like Rochelle Guitierrez who want to change math curricula to inject the gospel into math lessons, in charge of spreading the message to the priests who speak to the laity directly in classrooms and offices.
Among the laity I think I've encountered at least two kinds. I've encountered some people that make almost nothing but Elect talking points on social media in their every post. They lament no cancellations and insist either they don't exist, or they are a good thing. There's a heavy "St. George in Retirement Syndrome" in play. It's 1967 and they are fighting the good fight.
Then there's a second kind. They are busy with kids and jobs. They read about some cancellations and assume they were justified, after all what could be wrong with the "antiracists"? Sometimes, though, they think things have gotten out of hand. They know personally critics of the antiracists they respect. To their knowledge the good qualities outnumber the bad, so overall the Elect are a net benefit to society and they are glad to play their part.
We are now being told that only black doctors should treat black patients. The corollary is that only white doctors should treat white patients? That is creepy. Asian cis-gendered female doctors should treat Asian cis-gendered female patients? How will we navigate this? The world appears to be re-apartheiding into multi-tribalism, where is it is not clear if all lives matter (literally in healthcare). Who gets to intubate the gender queer man who identifies as nonspecific? Anybody? Struggle session? This demographic Marxist virtual signaling shallow cult of self-importance is going to kill people for real as it starts seeping into the field of medicine. Very worried. Reference: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/health/black-babies-mortality-rate-doctors-study-wellness-scli-intl/index.html (i.e., one's lived experience or poorly run and analyzed self-serving "studies" do not science make). PS. Dear John. I know you are a linguist, so please don't misunderestimate my prose. :-)
And the beat goes on - local news story: Bay Area restaurant gets death threats after disciplining waitress wearing "BLM" mask for being out of uniform. Waitress claims owner favors uniforms over support for oppressed people. Owner shuts his business down, apologizes - claiming he has a lot to learn. Another victory for "The Elect".
It just crossed my mind this minute, that the thing I like about the title - The Elect, is that it reminds me to consider what I consider with a measure of respect (which is a reasonable starting point in this adventure.) Whether this denotes an actual election, or a self-appointment, it has become obvious that the measure of power and control inflates the sense of importance and purpose. I have always found it a curious thing (considering the Mao's, Pol Pots, Stalins et al - that there is no real leader. As if by design...
"in being ever ready to call you a racist in the public square, the Third Wave Antiracist outguns you on the basis of this one weapon alone." Here is how I have always responded, as a white person, to this accusation/observation: "Of course I am a racist. I was raised in a racist society. I am a product of 1965 - present American society. I am susceptible to implicit/unconscious forms of bias. The best I can do is consciously try to avoid racist actions and behaviors." This immediately disarms the accuser and also has the benefit of being true.
"In an alternate universe these people would be about as important as the Yippies were back in the day, with marijuana on their “flag,” applying to levitate the Pentagon, and smacking pies in people’s faces. They were a fringe movement good for a peek, and occasionally heightened awareness a tad." Oh, but an important element of the Yippies (and MAD magazine) was humor and satire. Too many of the Neoracists are humorless. I know this used to be said about feminists (and I am one), but humor is still important as a tool of social critique and light-heartedness. In short, I say to the Neoracists: stop taking yourself so seriously (and self-importantly)!
I'm not so sure that your use of "The Elect" with its Calvinist undertone, as pointed out by another commenter, really works with the additional claim that these are largely people who are well meaning but misguided and don't really understand the implications of their beliefs. In my experience they feel their anti-racism right and true because they are materially successful people, much like many people adopted the idea that material prosperity was an identification of Calvinist Predestination. It becomes self-reinforcing circular logic. Their status in the Elect is justified by their (very real) privileges and their privileges are justified by their anti-racism, unlike those other people who aren't anti-racist and either deserve to be poor or don't deserve their material wealth. They aren't just willfully blind to the ways their privileges mean they will pay no price for the implementation of 'equity' but see that as being a positive good since it means the people who are in the wrong are going to be punished.
I am a mixed race 36 year old male living and working as a professional dancer in Los Angeles. I’ve never really felt oppressed but I have had some instances that could be attributed to my race but also my attitude (I’ve been told I don’t speak well to people and I still don’t know what that is about) nonetheless my talent, dedication and persistence of achieving that which I set out to achieve hasn’t stopped me. I see the good and bad in the New Anti-Racism cultural shift. I for one don’t want or need approval. I think it is a disservice to everyone involved to need approval from. At any rate I am very much enjoying continuing to learn and think, reading your work and listing to your talks especially on Glenn Loury YouTube show Bloggingheads.tv I’m also into Colman Hughes and Sam Harris. I’ve always been a thinker but have struggled in academia especially when I was young which is one reason I sometimes side with Anti-racism on some of the school things I believe brains develop at different speeds. Things I couldn’t get when I was young in school I can understand now and had it not been for my talent as a dancer I would have failed solely because I couldn’t understand the material in the time that it needed to be understood. I don’t think people should be “punished” for that. There definitely needs to be changes and I am a little interested and intrigued by where this all could take us. But I do fear if could be for the worse. Thank you John for your intellect you are incredibly inspiring and I love hearing you speak. It’s so concise and witty and full of intellect. Brilliantly fun to witness!
I watch Fox News AND listen to NPR AND read The Atlantic and read The Claremont Review of Books AND National Review. So I hope, John, I might qualify as one for whom you are writing this book. Yes, I'm a conservative, and I was in college in the late 1960s, so in a sense it doesn't take much to convince me of the wickedness of this new religion of antiracism. But your insights and logic help me to a better understanding of the phenomena. I would encourage you to go on Fox News programs such as Tucker Carlson. It's important that even unsophisticated conservatives achieve some deeper understanding of The Elect, and Tucker will give you that opportunity.
Saying “anti” twice in the title just doesn’t work. If the term “neoracist” was taken to mean something the author doesn’t intend, then make your intent known in the title. “How anti racist dogma fosters neoracist action that harms Black people and threatens progressive America.” Idk, that’s terrible too. Titles are hard!!!
Charges of racism pretty much roll off my back. Yes, I "fail" the implicit association test, but I would also fail it if it was about ageism (in both directions), ableism, sexism, fatism and probably a lot of other "isms." I'm an old lady myself, but I often have very uncharitable thoughts about other old women that I pass on the street. I know that if I struck up a conversation with one of these people, I'd quickly start seeing her as an individual person and the stereotypes would melt away. Generally when I notice my implicit associations acting up, I replace them with more realistic and less boring ideas that come from my actual life experience.
What shames me is if I forget myself and say something hurtful and disrespectful to another person. So my stance these days is not to worry about my racism, but instead to try to collect the "micro-aggressions" that I might ignorantly commit‒ in the same way that I collect cultural dos and don'ts before I travel to a new country, or the way that I remember that certain pronouncements might be wounding to a friend. (Thank God I'm retired and not in an academic or work setting where people are walking on eggs every moment. As it is, I'm girding up to return to in-person volunteering amongst the Woke.)
For me, racism is not about all the thoughts and feelings we have roiling around in our brains, because we're all just human and those thoughts are there. It's about what we intentionally choose to believe and what we try to convince others to believe. True racists try to convince others of their viewpoints and to motivate others to act on their racist beliefs.
My path through life includes a well-established habit of self-examination. Since I think in the categories of Christianity ("..for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God") I accept my sinful nature and do my best not to live it out. Unfortunately, Christianity began to addresses tribalism only in the last couple of centuries. It appears rarely in the Bible: in a couple of New Testament stories that involve Samaritans, Paul's outreach to the Gentiles, and possibly the story of Ruth. Tribalism didn't make it into the Seven Deadly Sins.
This omission may explain to some extent the Right's deep defensiveness about being called racist by the Left. This is a taproot of the polarization that's the most deadly threat to our democracy. (Sorry guys, racism and the Elect are not my ultimate concern, except to the extent that they aggravate the great American schism.) My suspicion is that people who tend to be conservative are aware of their "implicit racial associations" but are placed so deeply on the defensive by the Left that their only response is to get mad, circle the wagons, and tune in to Fox. Their churches haven't gotten around to preaching how to approach one's own racism with repentance, forgiveness, charity and love. In the meantime our immense political and economic systems keep the poor and powerless compliant and distracted by making sure they're afraid of the other "tribe."
I am a biracial (asian and white) woman, grew up in a foreign country, moved here in my teens, and STILL was somehow blissfully unaware that I was “oppressed”, or even that my non-whiteness was supposed to be some sort of “problem”, until I went to my very expensive liberal arts college and was informed by some of my fellow woke students that I was simply “unaware” of my own oppression. When I disagreed, they told me I was, in so many words, stupid and to shut up. That is probably the first time I have ever actually felt oppressed. Not to date myself, but this was back in the 2000s, so I guess that expensive liberal arts school was just a bit ahead of the curve. Oh, and when I argued with one of them about the wisdom and appropriateness her plan to intentionally start a campus “race war” to get attention, she slapped me in the face. An actual slap, with a hand. That was also the first time I’d ever been hit. And this was not an argument about left vs. right, we were (and probably still are) all card-carrying Democrats. That division does not seem to be the salient one, with these people. It was such an odd moment that it laid bare the degree to which performative social justice is possibly a product of a society that has turned having a grievance into a form of currency, and the particular narcissism of obsessing over and nurturing one’s grievances into a virtue. And then, subsequently, social media culture took that narcissism and monetized it by essentially selling us to ourselves.
Re: the religious undertones, I was reminded of this, from what feels like forever ago. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/01/the-scourge-of-self-flagellating-politics
Thank you, John. Suitably entertaining for such a dismal topic.
Is it reasonable to distinguish between the laity and the clergy regarding The Elect? I'm hoping there are many who seem like regular Sunday church attendees that would think more critically if they took time to consider the issue.
There's the high priests spreading the gospel truth, Robin Diangelo, Ta-Nahesi Coates, etc. There are lesser clergy, like Rochelle Guitierrez who want to change math curricula to inject the gospel into math lessons, in charge of spreading the message to the priests who speak to the laity directly in classrooms and offices.
Among the laity I think I've encountered at least two kinds. I've encountered some people that make almost nothing but Elect talking points on social media in their every post. They lament no cancellations and insist either they don't exist, or they are a good thing. There's a heavy "St. George in Retirement Syndrome" in play. It's 1967 and they are fighting the good fight.
Then there's a second kind. They are busy with kids and jobs. They read about some cancellations and assume they were justified, after all what could be wrong with the "antiracists"? Sometimes, though, they think things have gotten out of hand. They know personally critics of the antiracists they respect. To their knowledge the good qualities outnumber the bad, so overall the Elect are a net benefit to society and they are glad to play their part.
One hopes these last could be reached.
We are now being told that only black doctors should treat black patients. The corollary is that only white doctors should treat white patients? That is creepy. Asian cis-gendered female doctors should treat Asian cis-gendered female patients? How will we navigate this? The world appears to be re-apartheiding into multi-tribalism, where is it is not clear if all lives matter (literally in healthcare). Who gets to intubate the gender queer man who identifies as nonspecific? Anybody? Struggle session? This demographic Marxist virtual signaling shallow cult of self-importance is going to kill people for real as it starts seeping into the field of medicine. Very worried. Reference: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/health/black-babies-mortality-rate-doctors-study-wellness-scli-intl/index.html (i.e., one's lived experience or poorly run and analyzed self-serving "studies" do not science make). PS. Dear John. I know you are a linguist, so please don't misunderestimate my prose. :-)
And the beat goes on - local news story: Bay Area restaurant gets death threats after disciplining waitress wearing "BLM" mask for being out of uniform. Waitress claims owner favors uniforms over support for oppressed people. Owner shuts his business down, apologizes - claiming he has a lot to learn. Another victory for "The Elect".
John, I think we may need to make an alliance with The Elect against a third greater evil, though... racially-colorblind oligarchical totalitarians...
It just crossed my mind this minute, that the thing I like about the title - The Elect, is that it reminds me to consider what I consider with a measure of respect (which is a reasonable starting point in this adventure.) Whether this denotes an actual election, or a self-appointment, it has become obvious that the measure of power and control inflates the sense of importance and purpose. I have always found it a curious thing (considering the Mao's, Pol Pots, Stalins et al - that there is no real leader. As if by design...
"in being ever ready to call you a racist in the public square, the Third Wave Antiracist outguns you on the basis of this one weapon alone." Here is how I have always responded, as a white person, to this accusation/observation: "Of course I am a racist. I was raised in a racist society. I am a product of 1965 - present American society. I am susceptible to implicit/unconscious forms of bias. The best I can do is consciously try to avoid racist actions and behaviors." This immediately disarms the accuser and also has the benefit of being true.
"In an alternate universe these people would be about as important as the Yippies were back in the day, with marijuana on their “flag,” applying to levitate the Pentagon, and smacking pies in people’s faces. They were a fringe movement good for a peek, and occasionally heightened awareness a tad." Oh, but an important element of the Yippies (and MAD magazine) was humor and satire. Too many of the Neoracists are humorless. I know this used to be said about feminists (and I am one), but humor is still important as a tool of social critique and light-heartedness. In short, I say to the Neoracists: stop taking yourself so seriously (and self-importantly)!
I'm not so sure that your use of "The Elect" with its Calvinist undertone, as pointed out by another commenter, really works with the additional claim that these are largely people who are well meaning but misguided and don't really understand the implications of their beliefs. In my experience they feel their anti-racism right and true because they are materially successful people, much like many people adopted the idea that material prosperity was an identification of Calvinist Predestination. It becomes self-reinforcing circular logic. Their status in the Elect is justified by their (very real) privileges and their privileges are justified by their anti-racism, unlike those other people who aren't anti-racist and either deserve to be poor or don't deserve their material wealth. They aren't just willfully blind to the ways their privileges mean they will pay no price for the implementation of 'equity' but see that as being a positive good since it means the people who are in the wrong are going to be punished.
mfers gone off that Elect