Assorted subjects and topics on Race

[TSherbs]

To avoid the appearance of diverting other threads on more narrow topics, I am opening this one as a catch-all for various types of posts under the general area of "race," perhaps even attempts to define the term, historical understandings, current events, whatever.

[TSherbs]

I have been re-reading Stamped, by Ibram X Kendi and giving it a closer, secondary look. It is very well written (in its paragraphs), but I find its organization and focus in the chapters a bit too loose for my liking.

But, more to the point for this post: What I was struck by in my reading last night was actually how many persons of some prominence and "voice" were writing and speaking and criticizing the moral and ethical and philosophical grounds for slavery and prejudice from the earliest days of the republic. It is often said that "things were different back then" or that "they did not know any better" or "that's just the way that the races saw each other. Well, yes and... NO. It turns out--much more than I realized--that there have ALWAYS been voices in America challenging prejudice and racial injustice and slavery and then Jim Crow laws, etc., vehemently and in very clear terms that we would recognize today. The bulk of the country just was not listening or at least not agreeing. But it was not the case that early America was not exposed to ideas of equality of the races (and genders) and all peoples. Sure, illiterate persons were not reading pamphlets or newspapers, and rural farm folk or woods folk may not have heard such talk in their kitchens or in the fields. But they may have in their churches (and may have heard the opposite), and people in the cities and towns (cities were like towns in the earliest days) would not have been isolated from such occasional tracts and sermons and speeches (although, again, they would have been hearing the opposite, too). But these ideas or absolute equality and injustice of treatment were not absent or missing or unheard of in any absolute way. Indeed, there were at times raging debates, and Kendi actually argues that the debates were more energized before the idea of colonization of blacks in Africa or Lousiana began to take hold as the anti-slavery effort began to fade in the face of abolitionist racism (yes, the oxymoron is intended and accurate) and lack of motivation and "answer" for what to do with free blacks, most of whom they did not actually see as equals. But there were people publicaly arguing, from the beginning, that even the racism beneath slavery was wrong and needed to be righted.

[dneal]

Phillipe Copeland and Glenn Loury must be more black faces of white supremacy...

Are layoffs racist or antiracist?

Boston University Professor Phillipe Copeland would like to know. When news broke that Ibram X. Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University was laying off half or more of its staff, Professor Copeland called the move an “act of employment violence and trauma” and said the “university needs to explain … how mass layoffs are ‘antiracist.’”

Kendi needs to explain it too — and remember: neutrality is not an option.

Professor Copeland is not the only former colleague turning against Kendi. The outgoing faculty lead of the center’s policy office critiqued the original decision to give him “millions of dollars and so much authority.” The former assistant director of narrative (and, yes, the center also had an associate director of narrative) said she found the center “exploitative and other faculty experienced the same and worse.”

In another comment, Copeland accused others of sitting “at the feet of a ‘Master’ who provides answers in exchange for deference. They mistake celebrity for solutions. This is a ‘Chosen One’ theory of change.”

While these criticisms are partially directed at the university, they also clearly target Kendi and suggest he is what his critics have long said he is: a self-promoter elevated to a role he is unsuited to play.

In conversation with Columbia University linguist John McWhorter last year, Glenn Loury, a professor at Brown University, was blunter in his assessment of Kendi: “I take umbrage at the lionization of lightweight, empty-suited, empty-headed mother***ers like Ibram X. Kendi, who couldn’t carry my book bag, who hasn’t read … a f***ing thing. If you ask him what Nietzsche said, he would have no idea. … He’s an unserious, superficial, empty-suited lightweight. He’s not our equal, not even close.”

The popularity of this mediocre thinker was always stunning. He has commanded up to $40,000 per speaking engagement and attracted millions of dollars in donations, including a $10 million gift from Twitter founder Jack Dorsey. What has happened to all that money?

Those of us who lived through the moral panic that catapulted him (and Robin DiAngelo) to fame in 2020 could be forgiven for enjoying a moment of schadenfreude as his ideological brothers-in-arms turn his own arguments against him. It is an understandable enjoyment after those of us who always opposed racism were nonetheless subjected to all those workshops, trainings, and committee meetings. We watched as our institutions issued diversity statements and inclusive language guides, insisted on curricular changes, and announced new antiracist initiatives, suggesting racism lurked in every corner.

In fairness, Kendi cannot be personally blamed for all of this, even if he took full advantage of his moment. While the complaints about him and the layoffs are personal for his former colleagues, the rest of us should be more concerned with what he represents. His rise and fall are irrevocably tied to a fervor, fueled by the anxieties of a pandemic, that spread through the American academy, attempting to remake it according to the ideas of one or two thinkers — a damnable abdication of responsibility for the intellectual capaciousness and commitment to free and open inquiry aiming toward truth that should characterize academia.

Dare we hope that the decline of Kendi’s center is another sign that we have reached “peak woke” and the tide is turning, as some have suggested?

Texas and Florida are dismantling the diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracies that colonized their universities, and public institutions in Arizona, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia, and elsewhere have renounced the use of DEI statements in hiring.

Meantime, legislatures in Tennessee, Ohio, and elsewhere have created academic centers devoted to civic education and free expression. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against race-based college admissions. There is even some evidence that the number of cancellations on American campuses is declining.

These are small flickers of freedom against the backdrop of intolerance and ideology that still dominate our colleges and universities. These institutions are still overpopulated by those who would call themselves liberals or progressives or leftists. They have allowed too much of the ideology Kendi represents to become embedded within them. And looking to the future, survey data suggests that the next generation of college professors is already set in its even more intolerant ways.

But the reduction of Kendi’s center shows that things can change. As he and his former allies descend into infighting, we should slip past them and continue to build on the reforms that have begun.

Kendi famously and perversely claimed, “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination.” The remedy to Kendi’s supposedly antiracist ideology is to ignore this pernicious binary and cultivate institutions dedicated to truth and freedom that are based on merit, fairness, and equality.

[dneal]

Just because it's so hilarious. Language warning.

[kazoolaw]

Now there's an attack on a man's character.

[dneal]

I think it's an attack on his competence and capability.

[kazoolaw]

You're right: "m**f**er" isn't limited to character, competence, and capability. Especially when combined with "lightweight, empty-suited, empty-headed.

[dneal]

While the language is indeed colorful (which at least one poster seems to enjoy), I don't see that it's directed toward anything other than his academic competence.

Me calling Kendi a race grifter would be an attack on his character - even though there is a strong case for its accuracy.

[Herry]

As a loyal customer of Dunkin Donuts, I appreciate when a company genuinely cares about my satisfaction. Their Customer Satisfaction Survey is not only a platform to voice my opinions but also a testament to their commitment to providing excellent service. Here's to shaping the future of donut joy, one survey at a time!

[dneal]

Triggering EOC to respond with one of his spambots is always delicious.

Thanks David!

[Warbler]

I would like to know what people here think of this:

First I know very little on basketball, much less about women's college basketball. But apparently there is is player for Iowa named Caitlin Clark. She has broken all kinds of records and is thought to be great basketball player. Someone named Sheryl Swoopes made some disparaging remarks about Caitlin Clark. Some are saying the remarks are racist(Caitlin Clark is white and Sheryl Swoopes is black). Swoopes retorted and said that black people can not be racist. I have seen an article that agrees with this. The argument is(and I have seen this multiple times before) is that black people can not be racist against white people because they lack power. Some apparently think that in order to be racist against some race, you require power over that race.

What do you think of this? Do you agree or not and why?

Here is my take:

I totally disagree with that opinion

1. I have found multiple definitions of the words racism and racist that do require anyone to have power for the definition to apply.

2. more and more the lack of the power is less and less applicable. 8 years ago we had a black President. Right now we have a black VP. Many elected officials are black. In Philly right now, the mayor is black, the President of city council is black, the police commissioner is black and so are multiple other elected officials in the city. What if they were racist against white people? Would they not have power over white people?

3. What the heck else to you call it when someone makes bigoted/prejudicial comments about someone based on their race?

4. Lets say we all agree that you need power to be racist, and lets say we all agree that all black people lack that power. Does that make saying comments that would otherwise be racist okay to make?

[kazoolaw]

Some people apparently have forgotten “Black Power.”

[dneal]

Seems relevant given the current goings-on of the world.

Mark Twain's "Concerning the Jews".

It gets accused of being both philosemitic and antisemitic. I think it's a fair personal assessment.

A scanned library edition is online at This LINK. I thought it a fun intersection of analog and digital for a brief read.

Screen Shot 2024-03-12 at 7.31.07 PM.png

But it begins with a question he received in the mail, and his answer - published in Harpers Monthly in 1899. I'll nest it in forum-style:

Tell me, therefore, from your vantage-point of cold view, what in your mind is the cause. Can American Jews do anything to correct it either in America or abroad? Will it ever come to an end? Will a Jew be permitted to live honestly, decently, and peaceably like the rest of mankind? What has become of the Golden Rule?

I will begin by saying that if I thought myself prejudiced against the Jew, I should hold it fairest to leave this subject to a person not crippled in that way. But I think I have no such prejudice. A few years ago a Jew observed to me that there was no uncourteous reference to his people in my books, and asked how it happened. It happened because the disposition was lacking. I am quite sure that (bar one) I have no race prejudices, and I think I have no color prejudices nor caste prejudices nor creed prejudices. Indeed, I know it.

I can stand any society. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being - that is enough for me; he can't be any worse. I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a little his way, on account of his not having a fair show.

All religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but the evidence for the prosecution, and yet we have rendered the verdict. To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English; it is un-American; it is French. Without this precedent Dreyfus could not have been condemned.

Of course Satan has some kind of a case, it goes without saying. It may be a poor one, but that is nothing; that can be said about any of us. As soon as I can get at the facts I will undertake his rehabilitation myself, if I can find an unpolitic publisher. It is a thing which we ought to be willing to do for any one who is under a cloud. We may not pay him reverence, for that would be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents.

A person who has for untold centuries maintained the imposing position of spiritual head of four-fifths of the human race, and political head of the whole of it, must be granted the possession of executive abilities of the loftiest order. In his large presence the other popes and politicians shrink to midges for the microscope. I would like to see him. I would rather see him and shake him by the tail than any other member of the European Concert.

In the present paper I shall allow myself to use the word Jew as if it stood for both religion and race. It is handy; and, besides, that is what the term means to the general world. In the above letter one notes these points:

1. The Jew is a well-behaved citizen.
2. Can ignorance and fanaticism alone account for his unjust treatment?
3. Can Jews do anything to improve the situation?
4. The Jews have no party; they are non-participants.
5. Will the persecution ever come to an end?
6. What has become of the Golden Rule?

He expounds on his points after this...

[Chuck Naill]

I see African Americans be disrespectful toward Hispanic people. They do it because they can and they know they can get by. This attitude is human and not racial. We tend to be unkind toward those who we perceive as inferior. It might be children, fundamentalists, old people, teen age girls and boys, republicans, etc. It might be people who choose to wear masks and get a vaccine. It’s the same pathology.

[dneal]

Chuck, have a read of Twain’s essay. It’s short. Like 7000 words.

There’s Christianity and all sorts of stuff in there. Quote what you like and we’ll talk about it.

[Warbler]

I see African Americans be disrespectful toward Hispanic people. They do it because they can and they know they can get by. This attitude is human and not racial. We tend to be unkind toward those who we perceive as inferior. It might be children, fundamentalists, old people, teen age girls and boys, republicans, etc. It might be people who choose to wear masks and get a vaccine. It’s the same pathology.

and it is wrong, no matter what group is doing it and no matter what group they are doing it to, imho.

[Chuck Naill]

I see African Americans be disrespectful toward Hispanic people. They do it because they can and they know they can get by. This attitude is human and not racial. We tend to be unkind toward those who we perceive as inferior. It might be children, fundamentalists, old people, teen age girls and boys, republicans, etc. It might be people who choose to wear masks and get a vaccine. It’s the same pathology.

and it is wrong, no matter what group is doing it and no matter what group they are doing it to, imho.

Absolutely immoral. Immoral because it fails in the test of treating others as we, ourselves, would want to be treated. People make excuses why being disrespectful is necessary, but usually that is fear based or I am afraid you are going to take something that is mine or that I want. Like other topics here discussed, misinformation is common. We are all just trying to live.