Today’s Plan:
- Double Back to Pew Center
- Responses
- Analyzing Articles
Double Back to Pew Center
On Friday, I shared a link to the PEW Center, and I mentioned that the final results of one of the polls “was complicated,” and left it at that. Leaving it that way gnawed on me a bit after class, and so I wanted to come back to it today.
DuBois, 1897, “Double Consciousness,” “his striving to be a co-worker in the kingdom of culture.”
How black people can internalize and judge themselves accordign to a dominant (white) ideological narrative.
Responses
I reviewed Write Up #5 and began reading the Miller papers Sunday. I wanted to share some highlights.
In Write Up #5, Soren wrote:
Interestingly, Coates doesn’t seem to be arguing in favor of reparations because of economic motivations (though those are certainly prevalent and welcome). Coates writes, “the crime with which reparation activists charge the country implicates more than just a few towns or corporations. The crime indicts the American people themselves… a crime that implicates the entire American people deserves its hearing in the legislative body that represents them.” Here, Coates seems more interested in having the “hearing” than the resulting reparations that would result from that hearing. Coates continues, “I believe that wrestling publicly with these questions matters as much as–if not more than–the specific answers that might be produced.” I’m a little bit on the fence about this argument. It seems to be arguing that merely having the discussion or the “hearing” is enough, but I think this is fraught. Having the discussion doesn’t immediately better America and its citizens. Earlier, Coates draws a comparison between America and post-World War II West Germany. I think there’s one big difference between America and West Germany that is that the worst perpetrators of the Holocaust were tried for cirmes against humanity. What happened to the Confederate traitors? Worse than nothing, the Vice President of the Confederacy became a senator and governor. It’s a lot easier to deal with these issues when the worst perpetrators have been dealt with, but America let them have power and let them continue their racist ideology.
I understand why the lack of consequences for the South, and the general lack of oversight, might make one hesitant to believe that a hearing might be productive. I wrote in a few places, however, that I think Coates’ goal is quite different from Kendi’s. Coates advocates more to incite white critical self/historic reflection than he does to advocate for reparations as a policy. In this, Coates really resonates with Blankenship and Corder–the idea that true change begins with the self, and only after one “does the work” can one be ready to work with others. There are, of course, many who don’t see the need to do any work. And that might give us cause to pause.
With Kendi–what I like about this book is how it problematizes most white positions of “well, I’m not a part of the problem because I’m certainly not racist.” Or its cousin “I don’t think racist thoughts.”
Regardless of whether that’s true (and it is a black hole to argue whether someone *is* a racist), Kendi’s argument is that racism isn’t a matter of what you think or say, but rather a matter of what you do. Specifically, racism becomes a matter of whether you are arguing for policies that explicitly combat racial inequalities. We can think of stases similar to Miller’s:
- can you show an inequality?
- can you explicity confront racist arguments for the problem’s origin?
- argue for its persistence?
- introduce a possible solution?
- address how you will measure the results of the solution?
Violeta wrote about racial inequalities in her high school–how students were grouped and taught. That got me thinking of Kendi. With Kendi–what I like about this book is how it problematizes most white positions of “well, I’m not a part of the problem because I’m certainly not racist.” Or its cousin “I don’t think racist thoughts.”
Regardless of whether that’s true (and it is a black hole to argue whether someone is a racist), Kendi’s argument is that racism isn’t a matter of what you think or say, but rather a matter of what you do. Specifically, racism becomes a matter of whether you are arguing for policies that explicitly combat racial inequalities. We can think of stases similar to Miller’s–can you show an inequality? argue for its persistence? introduce a possible solution? address how you will measure the results of the solution? So we’d have to ask the officials in Violeta’s school: if there’s a difference in test scores, what are you doing to redress the issue? what evidence do you have that it is working? if it isn’t working, then what will you do next?
For Kendi, “racist” is when you just let a problem continue to exist. Also: what is important here is the “we,” especially most of us in this room. White people have to lead the charge on this. We cannot expect minorities to redress the wrongs of a system that wronged them.
Kendi is advancing what might seem like an extremist position. But that’s because he is attempting to force white (mostly) liberals who claim “I’m not racist” to recognize that, regardless of whether they feel racist, they have an obligation to redress racial inequalities.
No more sitting at home, saying “I’m not racist” and doing nothing. You are either doing something–anything, or you are allowing racist inequalities to sustain themselves. (Couple this with Kendi’s argument that the only way to fix past racism is with present racism–in a material world, there is no “ideal” equality; this is also relevant).
Maureen wrote:
He talks about Germany’s reckoning after the horrors of the Holocaust, where Germany had to do *something* to acknowledge their role in the massacre of 6 million Jews and 5 million Roma, Queer, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Disabled, Black, Soviets, Poles, and those challenged Nazi rule. There was no way they could pretend these people were not murdered. But how do you make something like that right? How do you calculate the monetary cost of lives lost? Do you stop at just the monetary value? There is no simple way forward.
The problem, Coates points out, is that not everybody believed they were responsible. Not everyone believed the Jews were owed anything. The horror was over, right? Things were *different* now. They didn’t hate the Jews, so why should they pay anything? They hadn’t been a member of the Nazis, hadn’t agreed with the policies that made the murders and horrors legal. It wasn’t their fault. I see a very clear parallel to the way well-meaning White people talk about inequity between themselves and Black people, LatinX people, & Native people. They’re not advocating for the old days, where Whites owned Blacks, where segregation existed, where you could murder someone from a minority and nobody blinked an eye. Everyone is Equal now, with the same opportunities. If a White child succeeds where the Black child fails, clearly the White child tried harder, their parents were clearly more involved than the Black child’s, even if there is a monetary advantage. They’re not racist, But-
Never mind that segregation only “ended” 57 years ago. My dad is 62.
To return to where this started: I’m left thinking of Coates’ hope for a hearing, an airing, an accounting of past atrocities. That such a hearing might provoke critical reflection. That such reflection might provoke those well-meaning white people to feel a form of guilt that translates into Kendi’s accounting. Not a paying back, but a moving forward.
Related, comment from a Miller paper: “The danger of demagoguery is that never can see when the “other side” does it, but rarely do we notice that we are doing it too.
That’s why, if we are going to overcome it, we need to get better at critical self-reflection. We have to demand our side provide the same level of evidence as we demand from others. And we have to be willing to admit we were wrong about something, we have to be willing to actually consider evidence that challenges what we thought was right.” I think there’s a potential overlap with Blankenship here, a way to tie them tighter together.
Analyzing Articles
I went through some of the Canvas submissions–y’all had some interesting ideas on how to develop these projects.
I’m thinking of a “multi-faceted” approach. Let’s examine and discuss.
