Take a photo of a barcode or cover
calarco 's review for:
How to Be an Antiracist
by Ibram X. Kendi
Quite the hot topic, Ibram X. Kendi’s [b:How to Be an Antiracist|40265832|How to Be an Antiracist|Ibram X. Kendi|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1560163756l/40265832._SY75_.jpg|62549152] is work that lives up to the hype. I think at this point it is fairly established that while “race” is a social construct, the resultant racism is very real and alive in the world today.
Kendi makes a number of thought-provoking points that he delivers with passionate prose; there were a number of passages where I felt like I was reading a sermon, albeit a secular one. His underlying thesis on the difference between being nonracist and anti-racist is where the real meat of the text lies:
“The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a ‘race-neutral’ one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds White nationalist victimhood by positing the notion that any policy protecting or advancing non-White Americans toward equity is ‘reverse discrimination.’ That is how racist power can call affirmative action policies that succeed in reducing racial inequities ‘race conscious’ and standardized tests that produce racial inequities ‘race neutral.’ That is how they can blame the behavior of entire racial groups for the inequities between different racial groups and still say their ideas are ‘not racist.’ But there is no such thing as a not-racist idea, only racist ideas and antiracist ideas.”
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made similar observations of the dangers of notions of neutrality, and Kendi expands on this idea by differentiating between an individual and their behavior/beliefs. He demands results, and denounces what he calls a “failure doctrine.” Furthermore, he wants anti-racists to self-critique ideas within the movement. Only change within the antiracist’s past methodologies can create the change needed to bring about equitable policy and societal growth.
Change cannot happen without the humility of self-reflection. Kendi himself also struggled with assessing individuals by the impact of their actions over their intentions. While I am aware that Kendi’s divorce of bigoted behavior from identity has caused a bit of controversy, I feel that these conclusions are best summarized when he recounts how two activists he met when he was younger had transformed his own thinking on the matter:
“Patriarchal women, as a term, made no sense to me back then, like the term homophobic homosexuals. Only men can be patriarchal, can be sexist. Only heterosexuals can be homophobic. The radical black queer feminism of those two women detached homophobic from heterosexual, detached sexist from men, and feminist from women in the way I later detached racist from white people, and anti-racist from black people. They had a problem with homophobia, not heterosexuals. They had a problem with patriarchy, not with men. Crucially, they are going after all homophobes no matter their sexual identity, showed me that homophobic ideas and policy and power were their fundamental problem. Crucially, they are going after all patriarchs no matter their gender identity showed me that patriarchal ideas and policies and powers were their fundamental problem. They talked of queer people defending homophobia as powerfully as they talked about heterosexuals building a world of queer love. They talked of women defending sexism as powerfully as men building a feminist world. Maybe, they had me in mind.”
Overall, I thought this was a great read, and highly recommend it if you are interested in the topic.
Kendi makes a number of thought-provoking points that he delivers with passionate prose; there were a number of passages where I felt like I was reading a sermon, albeit a secular one. His underlying thesis on the difference between being nonracist and anti-racist is where the real meat of the text lies:
“The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a ‘race-neutral’ one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds White nationalist victimhood by positing the notion that any policy protecting or advancing non-White Americans toward equity is ‘reverse discrimination.’ That is how racist power can call affirmative action policies that succeed in reducing racial inequities ‘race conscious’ and standardized tests that produce racial inequities ‘race neutral.’ That is how they can blame the behavior of entire racial groups for the inequities between different racial groups and still say their ideas are ‘not racist.’ But there is no such thing as a not-racist idea, only racist ideas and antiracist ideas.”
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made similar observations of the dangers of notions of neutrality, and Kendi expands on this idea by differentiating between an individual and their behavior/beliefs. He demands results, and denounces what he calls a “failure doctrine.” Furthermore, he wants anti-racists to self-critique ideas within the movement. Only change within the antiracist’s past methodologies can create the change needed to bring about equitable policy and societal growth.
Change cannot happen without the humility of self-reflection. Kendi himself also struggled with assessing individuals by the impact of their actions over their intentions. While I am aware that Kendi’s divorce of bigoted behavior from identity has caused a bit of controversy, I feel that these conclusions are best summarized when he recounts how two activists he met when he was younger had transformed his own thinking on the matter:
“Patriarchal women, as a term, made no sense to me back then, like the term homophobic homosexuals. Only men can be patriarchal, can be sexist. Only heterosexuals can be homophobic. The radical black queer feminism of those two women detached homophobic from heterosexual, detached sexist from men, and feminist from women in the way I later detached racist from white people, and anti-racist from black people. They had a problem with homophobia, not heterosexuals. They had a problem with patriarchy, not with men. Crucially, they are going after all homophobes no matter their sexual identity, showed me that homophobic ideas and policy and power were their fundamental problem. Crucially, they are going after all patriarchs no matter their gender identity showed me that patriarchal ideas and policies and powers were their fundamental problem. They talked of queer people defending homophobia as powerfully as they talked about heterosexuals building a world of queer love. They talked of women defending sexism as powerfully as men building a feminist world. Maybe, they had me in mind.”
Overall, I thought this was a great read, and highly recommend it if you are interested in the topic.