Why is this idea so strange to you? Many people, including black and hispanic people, don't find the idea of "racism without explicit prejudice" intuitive in the slightest. Not least because it relies on an understanding of law and policy that requires more advanced education. The notion that…
Why is this idea so strange to you? Many people, including black and hispanic people, don't find the idea of "racism without explicit prejudice" intuitive in the slightest. Not least because it relies on an understanding of law and policy that requires more advanced education. The notion that structural racism exists is necessary to even begin discussing any of the other downstream effects of critical race theory. There's a reason that people cite book-length texts like "The New Jim Crow" to explain concepts like "even if you are not putting race in the laws, the laws can still unfairly affect black and hispanic people."
> The unwashed masses are not too stupid to understand the message spread by liberal intellectuals; it's the liberal intellectuals who are too stupid to understand how their brilliant ideas harm the poor - especially poor black & Hispanic families.
There are liberal intellectuals from poor black and Hispanic families. I'm Hispanic myself. I'm an immigrant who grew up in a majority-Hispanic-immigrant community, and I know a fair amount of people from poor communities who did well in school and on tests and got to go to these elite institutions. The low-income black/Hispanic people I know who went didn't find critical race theory stupid. In fact, many of them found it enlightening and continue to work in that framework.
That's not to say that every poor black or Hispanic student, if given the opportunity to go to an elite college and study these topics, would be convinced. But surely if we say "liberal intellectuals like these ideas, unlike poor black and Hispanic families," it's worth pointing out that very few (but not zero) liberal intellectuals come from these backgrounds due to poverty, racism, opportunity cost of studying humanities/social science contra something like medicine. But nevertheless, many advocates for critical race theory *are* black or Hispanic *and* from low-income communities. They're not likely to be the most famous ones, because of challenges within academia that make it harder for the work of poor scholars to be published and noticed and promoted. But the "poor black/Hispanic people vs liberal intellectual" divide is a false dilemma - there are poor black and Hispanic intellectuals who find these theories convincing.
And also...
> The unwashed masses are not too stupid to understand the message spread by liberal intellectuals;
Who said anything about 'stupid'? Here is an example: I don't understand linear algebra. Is it because I'm too stupid to understand it? Or is it because I never took a class like that in high school or college, and now as an adult, learning it on my own requires an immense investment of time that I simply don't have?
Many of the ideas of critical race theory require a lot of time to set up and explain. Most people, especially working people, will not really have the time to go through this on their own. Unless you got to learn this through college or you're extremely motivated to learn about the subject, you won't have the time or energy to do the readings. It has nothing to do with stupidity and everything to do with time and energy, of which the working class has precious little.
Some people are trying to make ideas behind critical race theory more accessible using metaphors and different language and visualizations. This is similar to those YouTube channels that try to teach concepts like trigonometry and calculus with graph visualizations. You can very successfully get the 'big idea' from these visualizations. But to go beyond (e.g. to debate, understand, implement policy initiatives) the 'big idea' requires more and more time and energy. And this applies to, frankly, any serious policy consideration: substitute anarcho-capitalism, neoliberalism, supply-side economics, socialism, third way politics.
What the 'liberal intellectuals' are doing is trying to create visualizations and metaphors that make concepts that they took several years studying to make them more understandable to people who do not have the time or desire to read a 500 page book on how structural racism works and different theoretical approaches to dismantling it. That's where the "make the concepts more understandable" comes from. (And frankly, that's where Tumblr has done a lot to spread these ideas in a near-viral fashion.) It has nothing to do with stupidity or intelligence, any more than the average working class voter not knowing the ins and outs of anarcho-capitalist theory has to do with stupidity or intelligence.
As for the rest of your post, I agree that the effects of crime on poor minority communities is devastating and severely hampers the ability of people in those communities to accumulate wealth, get an education, and secure a good job for themselves. I did not mention 'defund the police' or my stance on it at any point, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.
"What the 'liberal intellectuals' are doing is trying to create visualizations and metaphors that make concepts that they took several years studying to make them more understandable..."
I think if it takes several years to brainwash somebody into thinking CRT has any basis in reality, then maybe it's not worth the trouble.
Is studying libertarian philosophy and the economics to support it “brainwashing”? Or is it something that is perhaps more nuanced and complicated than can really be explained in a Vox article? I’m not convinced libertarians are right, but I’ve also never read their foundational texts. I only know a pop version of it. Perhaps I could be persuaded to change my mind to it - or any other position- if I read well-founded arguments in its favor instead of tweets or Editorials.
What are some positions that you think are immediately obvious that don’t require deeper study?
I agree that too many professors, journalists, and activists try to present their beliefs as settled truth. Frankly, I believe this actually hurts them. It gives the impression that they are not actually as secure in their beliefs as they think they are, if they believe that people are so easily swayed that the only way to protect them is via preventing contact with 'bad' ideas.
I first learned about critical race theory ten years ago reading academic blogs run and commented on by adults. I had never heard of the concepts before and found many of them illuminating in explaining things about the world. But because the position was a minority position, it meant that these people had to advocate for their position with people who could not be assumed to know what any of the terms meant. There was a tremendous amount of research, discussion, and even creativity.
Unfortunately, I also saw some very bad conversational norms right from the very beginning. The whole "you can't expect me to educate you" idea was always stupid and self-defeating. I think positionality has some merit to it, but people ended up using it as a way of pulling rank on others ("well, I am a {$OPPRESSED_GROUP}, and you are {$LESSER_OPPRESSION_VALUE}, so you are unequipped to have these conversation").
Once it hit Tumblr and Twitter, as far as I'm concerned, these toxic social norms became locked in and all nuance evaporated. Not least of all because the audience changed from people in their 30s and 40s to teenagers and 20-year-olds. And they succeeded in making it the primary lens through which to view race on Tumblr.
I wish this attitude were different, because I don't believe it is to critical race theory's credit that many of its most devoted believers rarely interact with anyone who doesn't agree with them already. All theories need to evolve and change with the times and with more understanding of the world. Unfortunately, as Singal's blog is testament, they've instead adopted a beleaguered attitude that prevents them from hearing thoughtful critique that isn't already being framed in their language. I find that a crying shame.
"I don't believe it is to critical race theory's credit that many of its most devoted believers rarely interact with anyone who doesn't agree with them already."
That's not exactly a new problem though; the whole theory was developed in an echo-chamber where pushback was moralized away as "not caring about racism", which is why it has so many glaring weaknesses/blind spots. For example, CRT & systemic racism theory really don't have an answer for why minority groups like Jews, Asian Americans, and even recent African immigrants frequently outperform white people on more or less every socioeconomic metric, except to No-True-Scotsman them away as "white-adjacency" and/or "internalized whiteness" (which gets really racist really fast as soon as you scratch the surface, e.g. studying as a "white" behaviour).
CRT has a lot in common with medieval "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" theology, which is why it's so convoluted to try to explain it to laymen and anyone who hasn't spent years being indoctrinated into accepting its various sketchy assumptions as axiomatic truths.
I appreciate this newsletter for Singals' intellectual curiosity and generosity, even to people he doesn't agree with. I follow his podcast Blocked and Reported for the same reason. I try to extent the same generosity to other people. There used to be a spirit, on the internet, of rubbing elbows with people who thought very differently from oneself, and still being able to keep company with them. I think it's a good goal to aim for.
I am not in academia though I did try to enter once. I do have many friends and 'colleagues' who are in academia and a number that have left as well. I agree that being a PhD is no guarantee that one will be an intelligent, thoughtful person.
> I think the issue of structural racism isn't obvious, but it would benefit from a lot *less* "study."
Could you elaborate on this? Are you saying that you think the issue of structural racism would be ameliorated if people knew less about? Like a sort of observer's paradox - the more we observe racism, the worse effects the racism will have?
One reason I think structural racism is not obvious is illustrated by Bank of America's new "Community Affordable Loan Solution." It's a program where Blacks and Hispanics can buy a home with no money down and no closing costs. No minimum credit score and no requirement for mortgage insurance even if less than 20% down.
IOW, one must factor in "structural racism" in *favor* of Blacks and Hispanics, right?
I would also point out at surveys asking if whites would be *against* a Black person marrying someone in family. From *very* poor memory: In 1984 it was around 86%, in 2016 it was around 14%. Recent figures put it at 6%. First, You can't just assume that 6% of Americans are White Supremacists. And, second of all, what is the basis of the idea that pretty much *all* institutions are plagued with "structural racism?" I think the basis is that some people just wanna destroy (or "dismantle") all the institutions in the country, for essentially no reason.
And I'm sure additional "study" will prove there are reasons to destroy the country. They just won't be based on reason.
Not only that, but if You look at everything through the lens of "structural racism" that's why You would see "structural racism" everywhere.
Are their *any* cases of structural racism? Sure. Probably a smaller number than You would *imagine.* But in the event they actually existed, then changes would be necessitated. Not necessary to dismantle everything.
Besides, it's been written that people who are over-educated are just as liable for all the psychological deficiencies, like confirmation bias, as anyone else. They just think they aren't. And, for that and other reasons, their so-called solutions tend to have little to do with the realities "on the ground," a *lotta* times, right?
(That's the long-winded version of what I meant, I guess. ;-)
I'll start by saying that I don't agree with all of the people who parade themselves as experts on structural racism and critical race theory. As in any field, there's a lot of garbage, and unfortunately I think the ones who are the most provocative and most appealing to white liberals get the most attention (hence the outsize focus on self-flagellation and inner reflection, which Singal has noted).
For example, I think Robin DiAngelo's approach to 'white fragility sensitivity training' is basically unfalsifiable, and also sort of missing the point entirely. "White fragility" broadly refers to a phenomenon where white people are uncomfortable talking about race, especially when it comes to discussing examples of white people who have benefitted from racism. I think this is a very WASP reaction - I'm a white Hispanic, and white Hispanics, in my experience, have no shame or embarrassment talking about race. (White hispanics are also more likely to be openly racist.) DiAngelo's framework of white fragility doesn't allow for any 'good' reactions beyond agreeing with her 100%, which is ridiculous, as she is not the arbiter of good race reactions. Nobody is the arbiter of such a thing. I don't think her training has good results, and in fact will only make people more uncomfortable in inter-racial conversations.
So, if I'm understanding you right, your impression of what structural racism is as follows:
- All structures in the government are biased, consciously or otherwise, against people of color
- All white people have implicit psychological biases against people of color
- All structures must therefore be torn down and replaced with new ones
- White people must meditate on their bias to become better people and not perpetuate new forms of structural racism
I think there are basically two concepts at play here.
Structural racism is an idea that became popular in the post-Civil Rights era, when black activists and scholars noted that although de facto race-based laws were over, the economic condition of black people hadn't improved. As people concerned for their community, they put research and thought into the question of, "why are African Americans doing so poorly?" especially in the legal area (it is significant that critical race theory began as a legal framework). The conclusion they came to was that although laws no longer specified race by name, laws were being made that still disproportionately affected African Americans negatively, which made it harder for them to accumulate wealth.
There is also the issue of implicit bias. I think it's fair to say that if you are a millenial, as I am, you've grown up seeing both positive depictions of black people and negative ones. One wishes that only the positive depictions remained in our memories, but unfortunately the negative depictions do, too. For example, I live in a majority white Hispanic area. I once saw a group of black teens just walking around a park, and for some reason a thought came to my head unbidden, "what if they're here to cause trouble". It surprised me, because I grew up in a house that attempted to be race-neutral, and I tried to consume media that challenged stereotypes of black teens. At the same time, I couldn't forget all of the media I had consumed where black teens were associated with gangs, or starting trouble, or some other negative thing, and my subconscious or unconscious or whatever makes thoughts you don't control spat that at me. I realized it was nonsense - these were just regular kids having fun. But what if someone else had a similar thought, and didn't think to ask, "why am I thinking this? Are they actually causing trouble, or am I being prejudiced?" What if this happened at work, or at school?
So, I think you're talking about these two concepts. I don't know if literally every structure in society is racist. I would not be surprised, if only for the reason that most of the people in America who have the opportunity to create massive social structures are white people who are middle class or higher. Even if we assume they are not prejudiced in the slightest, assume they are perfect angels, they still don't know what it's like to be poor, or the differences in black cultures and white cultures. They may assume, for example, that in most married couples, one partner will stay at home, because that's what they've seen in much of their life. They may create tax incentives around this assumption that will benefit couples with one partner at home, and one at work, and penalize couples where both partners work (in that it would be more advantageous for them to file separately). They're not doing this out of malice or implicit bias - they are simply ignorant of the socioeconomic conditions African Americans live in! But it still has consequences, as low-income black Americans where both partners work may find that they would actually save money on taxes if they filed separately. (Most low-income black Americans might assume that getting married *must* be better than filing separately, and so are probably also unaware of this tax situation, and don't realize that they are not optimizing their taxes.)
As you point out - "in the event that [cases of structural racism existed, then changes would be necessitated]." Frankly, I think this sort of thing - looking at how assumptions on how people live their lives, how socioeconomic ignorance can make life harder or more expensive, etc. is much more valuable and important to solve than poring over the soul of white people. Implicit bias is still important, but so far, we don't seem to have a great way to change it, as Singal has pointed out.
I don't think every structure must be dismantled. For one, I don't even see how that's possible, so it kind of seems like a non-starter. (Fun fact: some lefty extreme-progressive academics think academia itself is unsalvageably racist, and must be dismantled and remade. Universities are hesitant to put their work out, for understandable reasons.) For example, I don't think we need to be ashamed of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and the founders as a whole. The work Jefferson did in the Declaration, for example, has served as inspiration for liberatory groups throughout the world, regardless of race. We absolutely must grapple with the heinous things he did as slavemaster, and we shouldn't worship him the way some people seem to (American civic religion is a trip). But is really necessary to throw him out? What about other founding fathers? What about John Adams and Samuel Adams, who were against the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery in general?
I do think that the attitude that white people are better than other races was extremely common at the founding of this country (what critical race theorists call "white supremacy" - I don't like that term because it's associated with the KKK and Nazis specifically, so people are confused when they hear that George Washington "is a white supremacist'). But I also think it's important to point out the legacy of resistance, both from black people and from white people. There has always been debate and pushback. We do ourselves and the United States a disservice if we ignore the people who historically grappled with their own ignorance and prejudice, who risked social ridicule to fight for their values, who even risked their own lives because they believed that some aspect of their dominant racial paradigm was unspeakably wrong.
I think I agree with you on some things, then, like thinking too much importance is placed on racist soul-searching, how some conceptions of racism seem to allow for "no way out" (if you agree, you're racist - if you disagree, you're racist), and how there is a little bit of a destructive glee in wanting to "fully dismantle all structures, because they are all racist", but I disagree on the scale of how important structural racism is.
Apologies for the long post - I think I still missed some of your points, but I've already rambled on long enough. :)
No. Apology NOT accepted, because none NEEDED! (I just happen to appreciate long posts, probably because i've produced no small number myself. ;-)
TY for reply. You have some interesting points. But I think You're pretty far off-base on a few of them, and I don't wanna hurt Your feelings. Plus, I'd hafta give it considerable more thought before I responded in any event. Up to You. TY again.
Thank you for the considered conversation. In recent years, I've been more of a critic of critical race theory and its practitioners than a defender, so it's interesting to sort of put myself back in that point of view and think, what is worth taking from this area?
I would like to know which ones you think I'm off base on. There are always things one may not consider or know about. And I know it takes quite a while to write a considerate, reasonable, readable response, so there's no rush.
Yeah, I agree the loudest voices in the racist "anti-racist" movement are the least capable of actually helping anyone. DiAngelo amongst the worst of the lot. But she's grifted her way to being a multi-millionaire, so she has that "in favor" of herself. What bothers me most about her is, like You "said High Tone, if You don't agree with her 100%, Your in denial.
I would go along with Your definition of what structural racism is. By that definition, I don't think it's a useful concept.
I believe that the idea of structural racism was born outta impatience. Blacks thought that, with the passage of civil rights laws, everything would immediately change. They were right that, although the law changed, there were still obstacles to their advancing. That's an example of Black myopia. Society doesn't change as fast the law does. Simple as that.
My concept of implicit bias is a bit different. Yeah, it's a case of *deeply unconscious* negativity towards people who are different. I wonder... Have Blacks been tested? Because they likely have as much, if not more, implicit bias as White people.
I think the example You raise isn't so much a case of implicit bias as it's a case of applying, perhaps errant, stereotypes. My understanding is the one-a the most tested theories in psychology is the validity of stereotypes. Young Black males are killing each other by an order of magnitude more than others do, right? So, to me anyway, what You experienced is not an uncommon reaction. So I don't think You should hold it against Yourself. That is, as long as You recognize quickly that it *is* based on a stereotype. And that sometimes it doesn't apply to the situation.
Other times it might.
Me? I was lucky not to experience negative depictions of Blacks in my Youth. And as a teenager I experienced a very deep, positive, experience of Black people.
So perhaps I can add some insight. Your theory that it's likely that all structures in society are racist is an exaggeration that, to me, doesn't merit much consideration. Yeah, it was true before the Civil Rights act. That was a period of legal apartheid, right?
Today? You seem to be under the misapprehension that things have remained largely the same. They haven't. I don't know the statistics, but Black people in positions of power just doesn't compare to what it was back then. If You observe *closely* over the past five years, Black people punch *WAY ABOVE* their weight. That's how we entered a period of Black Supremacists being in power, right?
Granted, most Black Supremacists are Caucasian. Still...
Your statement that White people don't know what it's like to be poor is somewhat true. But I think it largely misses the point. Technically, only 20% of the people know what it's like to be in the bottom quintile. But there are a *lotta* people, both Black and White, who live paycheck to paycheck. Without the savings to be able to survive an unexpected expense of a few hundred dollars. I've been there myself. I consider those people to fall in the "poor" category.
But when You're talking about the people who are capable of creating massive social structures, I think Your view is somewhat.. How should I say.. I guess I would say that You seem to be somewhat constrained as to what changes have been going *on* these past five years. The, IMO, buffoon Kendi has created a massive social structure. BLM? Same. Hannah-Jones and Coates?
These are not White people.
But maybe You don't consider their doings to be creating *massive* social structures. Okay fine. Then the people You are referring to are the one-percenters. The politically connected. Those in Big Tech. Their wealth and power has been consolidated in just these past five or ten years, right? *Those* are the social structures that rule the day.
As far as not being ignorant of the socioeconomic conditions of poor Blacks, You exhibit Your own ignorance. Sorry. You showed some implicit bias that is common these days. Prejudice against White people. You seem to think that poor Whites are it materially better position than Blacks. On the contrary. Blacks are given *illegal* precedence in things like getting the vaccine and getting Federal money and so many other ways. For no good reason that any logical person can see.
I agree it's more important to consider how people live than to consider implicit bias. Unless You're gonna turn the bright light of inquiry onto the implicit bias that Blacks have, which I don't think has been given much consideration at all, AFAIK. Prejudice again, AFAIK.
And, no. We do *not* need to grapple with the "heinous things he [Jefferson] did as slavemaster..." And we *absolutely should* "worship him the way some people seem to.." Like You pointed out: I refer You to the experiment some Professor did when he asked a bunch-a privileged White kids how many of them would-a joined the Abolition Movement. They *all* would-a, right? Yeah, riiiiight. You think these punks would-a actually risked their *life* for the principle in *that day and age?!?*
Nup. No way.
There's totally, completely, and ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT to the idea of judging people in the past by present day conditions. How You think today's Woke are gonna be judged? (Weeeel, depends who wins and writes the history, true.) So, no. People back then didn't grapple with their own existence. *You're* lacking in imagination, IMO, when You look into the past.
I agree with the second-to-last paragraph. (And disagree with the last, as I posted above. ;-)
Okay. I'll take a shot at it. Probably tomorrow, on account-a my day ends early.
But I should warn You that I don't take a whole *lotta* time when I write, other than the typing. If something comes out considerate and readable, that's my aim. If it comes out reasonable, that's a miracle. ;-)
I'd chime in and say structural racism is a totally unfalsifiable proposition, so it would benefit from less study the same way the field of psychology was improved by dialing back the Freudian theories of psychoanalysis.
> (walk me through structural racism? Really?)
Why is this idea so strange to you? Many people, including black and hispanic people, don't find the idea of "racism without explicit prejudice" intuitive in the slightest. Not least because it relies on an understanding of law and policy that requires more advanced education. The notion that structural racism exists is necessary to even begin discussing any of the other downstream effects of critical race theory. There's a reason that people cite book-length texts like "The New Jim Crow" to explain concepts like "even if you are not putting race in the laws, the laws can still unfairly affect black and hispanic people."
> The unwashed masses are not too stupid to understand the message spread by liberal intellectuals; it's the liberal intellectuals who are too stupid to understand how their brilliant ideas harm the poor - especially poor black & Hispanic families.
There are liberal intellectuals from poor black and Hispanic families. I'm Hispanic myself. I'm an immigrant who grew up in a majority-Hispanic-immigrant community, and I know a fair amount of people from poor communities who did well in school and on tests and got to go to these elite institutions. The low-income black/Hispanic people I know who went didn't find critical race theory stupid. In fact, many of them found it enlightening and continue to work in that framework.
That's not to say that every poor black or Hispanic student, if given the opportunity to go to an elite college and study these topics, would be convinced. But surely if we say "liberal intellectuals like these ideas, unlike poor black and Hispanic families," it's worth pointing out that very few (but not zero) liberal intellectuals come from these backgrounds due to poverty, racism, opportunity cost of studying humanities/social science contra something like medicine. But nevertheless, many advocates for critical race theory *are* black or Hispanic *and* from low-income communities. They're not likely to be the most famous ones, because of challenges within academia that make it harder for the work of poor scholars to be published and noticed and promoted. But the "poor black/Hispanic people vs liberal intellectual" divide is a false dilemma - there are poor black and Hispanic intellectuals who find these theories convincing.
And also...
> The unwashed masses are not too stupid to understand the message spread by liberal intellectuals;
Who said anything about 'stupid'? Here is an example: I don't understand linear algebra. Is it because I'm too stupid to understand it? Or is it because I never took a class like that in high school or college, and now as an adult, learning it on my own requires an immense investment of time that I simply don't have?
Many of the ideas of critical race theory require a lot of time to set up and explain. Most people, especially working people, will not really have the time to go through this on their own. Unless you got to learn this through college or you're extremely motivated to learn about the subject, you won't have the time or energy to do the readings. It has nothing to do with stupidity and everything to do with time and energy, of which the working class has precious little.
Some people are trying to make ideas behind critical race theory more accessible using metaphors and different language and visualizations. This is similar to those YouTube channels that try to teach concepts like trigonometry and calculus with graph visualizations. You can very successfully get the 'big idea' from these visualizations. But to go beyond (e.g. to debate, understand, implement policy initiatives) the 'big idea' requires more and more time and energy. And this applies to, frankly, any serious policy consideration: substitute anarcho-capitalism, neoliberalism, supply-side economics, socialism, third way politics.
What the 'liberal intellectuals' are doing is trying to create visualizations and metaphors that make concepts that they took several years studying to make them more understandable to people who do not have the time or desire to read a 500 page book on how structural racism works and different theoretical approaches to dismantling it. That's where the "make the concepts more understandable" comes from. (And frankly, that's where Tumblr has done a lot to spread these ideas in a near-viral fashion.) It has nothing to do with stupidity or intelligence, any more than the average working class voter not knowing the ins and outs of anarcho-capitalist theory has to do with stupidity or intelligence.
As for the rest of your post, I agree that the effects of crime on poor minority communities is devastating and severely hampers the ability of people in those communities to accumulate wealth, get an education, and secure a good job for themselves. I did not mention 'defund the police' or my stance on it at any point, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.
CRT?
"What the 'liberal intellectuals' are doing is trying to create visualizations and metaphors that make concepts that they took several years studying to make them more understandable..."
I think if it takes several years to brainwash somebody into thinking CRT has any basis in reality, then maybe it's not worth the trouble.
Is studying libertarian philosophy and the economics to support it “brainwashing”? Or is it something that is perhaps more nuanced and complicated than can really be explained in a Vox article? I’m not convinced libertarians are right, but I’ve also never read their foundational texts. I only know a pop version of it. Perhaps I could be persuaded to change my mind to it - or any other position- if I read well-founded arguments in its favor instead of tweets or Editorials.
What are some positions that you think are immediately obvious that don’t require deeper study?
It is brainwashing these days because it is presented as gospel truth, with dissent not permitted.
I agree that too many professors, journalists, and activists try to present their beliefs as settled truth. Frankly, I believe this actually hurts them. It gives the impression that they are not actually as secure in their beliefs as they think they are, if they believe that people are so easily swayed that the only way to protect them is via preventing contact with 'bad' ideas.
I first learned about critical race theory ten years ago reading academic blogs run and commented on by adults. I had never heard of the concepts before and found many of them illuminating in explaining things about the world. But because the position was a minority position, it meant that these people had to advocate for their position with people who could not be assumed to know what any of the terms meant. There was a tremendous amount of research, discussion, and even creativity.
Unfortunately, I also saw some very bad conversational norms right from the very beginning. The whole "you can't expect me to educate you" idea was always stupid and self-defeating. I think positionality has some merit to it, but people ended up using it as a way of pulling rank on others ("well, I am a {$OPPRESSED_GROUP}, and you are {$LESSER_OPPRESSION_VALUE}, so you are unequipped to have these conversation").
Once it hit Tumblr and Twitter, as far as I'm concerned, these toxic social norms became locked in and all nuance evaporated. Not least of all because the audience changed from people in their 30s and 40s to teenagers and 20-year-olds. And they succeeded in making it the primary lens through which to view race on Tumblr.
I wish this attitude were different, because I don't believe it is to critical race theory's credit that many of its most devoted believers rarely interact with anyone who doesn't agree with them already. All theories need to evolve and change with the times and with more understanding of the world. Unfortunately, as Singal's blog is testament, they've instead adopted a beleaguered attitude that prevents them from hearing thoughtful critique that isn't already being framed in their language. I find that a crying shame.
"I don't believe it is to critical race theory's credit that many of its most devoted believers rarely interact with anyone who doesn't agree with them already."
That's not exactly a new problem though; the whole theory was developed in an echo-chamber where pushback was moralized away as "not caring about racism", which is why it has so many glaring weaknesses/blind spots. For example, CRT & systemic racism theory really don't have an answer for why minority groups like Jews, Asian Americans, and even recent African immigrants frequently outperform white people on more or less every socioeconomic metric, except to No-True-Scotsman them away as "white-adjacency" and/or "internalized whiteness" (which gets really racist really fast as soon as you scratch the surface, e.g. studying as a "white" behaviour).
CRT has a lot in common with medieval "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" theology, which is why it's so convoluted to try to explain it to laymen and anyone who hasn't spent years being indoctrinated into accepting its various sketchy assumptions as axiomatic truths.
I'm impressed by Your elucidation of the issue.
Unfortunately for You, I've seen too many PhDs who *thought* they knew a lot more than they actually did.
Are You still in academia by any chance?
I think the issue of structural racism isn't obvious, but it would benefit from a lot *less* "study."
I appreciate this newsletter for Singals' intellectual curiosity and generosity, even to people he doesn't agree with. I follow his podcast Blocked and Reported for the same reason. I try to extent the same generosity to other people. There used to be a spirit, on the internet, of rubbing elbows with people who thought very differently from oneself, and still being able to keep company with them. I think it's a good goal to aim for.
I am not in academia though I did try to enter once. I do have many friends and 'colleagues' who are in academia and a number that have left as well. I agree that being a PhD is no guarantee that one will be an intelligent, thoughtful person.
> I think the issue of structural racism isn't obvious, but it would benefit from a lot *less* "study."
Could you elaborate on this? Are you saying that you think the issue of structural racism would be ameliorated if people knew less about? Like a sort of observer's paradox - the more we observe racism, the worse effects the racism will have?
One reason I think structural racism is not obvious is illustrated by Bank of America's new "Community Affordable Loan Solution." It's a program where Blacks and Hispanics can buy a home with no money down and no closing costs. No minimum credit score and no requirement for mortgage insurance even if less than 20% down.
IOW, one must factor in "structural racism" in *favor* of Blacks and Hispanics, right?
I would also point out at surveys asking if whites would be *against* a Black person marrying someone in family. From *very* poor memory: In 1984 it was around 86%, in 2016 it was around 14%. Recent figures put it at 6%. First, You can't just assume that 6% of Americans are White Supremacists. And, second of all, what is the basis of the idea that pretty much *all* institutions are plagued with "structural racism?" I think the basis is that some people just wanna destroy (or "dismantle") all the institutions in the country, for essentially no reason.
And I'm sure additional "study" will prove there are reasons to destroy the country. They just won't be based on reason.
Not only that, but if You look at everything through the lens of "structural racism" that's why You would see "structural racism" everywhere.
Are their *any* cases of structural racism? Sure. Probably a smaller number than You would *imagine.* But in the event they actually existed, then changes would be necessitated. Not necessary to dismantle everything.
Besides, it's been written that people who are over-educated are just as liable for all the psychological deficiencies, like confirmation bias, as anyone else. They just think they aren't. And, for that and other reasons, their so-called solutions tend to have little to do with the realities "on the ground," a *lotta* times, right?
(That's the long-winded version of what I meant, I guess. ;-)
I'll start by saying that I don't agree with all of the people who parade themselves as experts on structural racism and critical race theory. As in any field, there's a lot of garbage, and unfortunately I think the ones who are the most provocative and most appealing to white liberals get the most attention (hence the outsize focus on self-flagellation and inner reflection, which Singal has noted).
For example, I think Robin DiAngelo's approach to 'white fragility sensitivity training' is basically unfalsifiable, and also sort of missing the point entirely. "White fragility" broadly refers to a phenomenon where white people are uncomfortable talking about race, especially when it comes to discussing examples of white people who have benefitted from racism. I think this is a very WASP reaction - I'm a white Hispanic, and white Hispanics, in my experience, have no shame or embarrassment talking about race. (White hispanics are also more likely to be openly racist.) DiAngelo's framework of white fragility doesn't allow for any 'good' reactions beyond agreeing with her 100%, which is ridiculous, as she is not the arbiter of good race reactions. Nobody is the arbiter of such a thing. I don't think her training has good results, and in fact will only make people more uncomfortable in inter-racial conversations.
So, if I'm understanding you right, your impression of what structural racism is as follows:
- All structures in the government are biased, consciously or otherwise, against people of color
- All white people have implicit psychological biases against people of color
- All structures must therefore be torn down and replaced with new ones
- White people must meditate on their bias to become better people and not perpetuate new forms of structural racism
I think there are basically two concepts at play here.
Structural racism is an idea that became popular in the post-Civil Rights era, when black activists and scholars noted that although de facto race-based laws were over, the economic condition of black people hadn't improved. As people concerned for their community, they put research and thought into the question of, "why are African Americans doing so poorly?" especially in the legal area (it is significant that critical race theory began as a legal framework). The conclusion they came to was that although laws no longer specified race by name, laws were being made that still disproportionately affected African Americans negatively, which made it harder for them to accumulate wealth.
There is also the issue of implicit bias. I think it's fair to say that if you are a millenial, as I am, you've grown up seeing both positive depictions of black people and negative ones. One wishes that only the positive depictions remained in our memories, but unfortunately the negative depictions do, too. For example, I live in a majority white Hispanic area. I once saw a group of black teens just walking around a park, and for some reason a thought came to my head unbidden, "what if they're here to cause trouble". It surprised me, because I grew up in a house that attempted to be race-neutral, and I tried to consume media that challenged stereotypes of black teens. At the same time, I couldn't forget all of the media I had consumed where black teens were associated with gangs, or starting trouble, or some other negative thing, and my subconscious or unconscious or whatever makes thoughts you don't control spat that at me. I realized it was nonsense - these were just regular kids having fun. But what if someone else had a similar thought, and didn't think to ask, "why am I thinking this? Are they actually causing trouble, or am I being prejudiced?" What if this happened at work, or at school?
So, I think you're talking about these two concepts. I don't know if literally every structure in society is racist. I would not be surprised, if only for the reason that most of the people in America who have the opportunity to create massive social structures are white people who are middle class or higher. Even if we assume they are not prejudiced in the slightest, assume they are perfect angels, they still don't know what it's like to be poor, or the differences in black cultures and white cultures. They may assume, for example, that in most married couples, one partner will stay at home, because that's what they've seen in much of their life. They may create tax incentives around this assumption that will benefit couples with one partner at home, and one at work, and penalize couples where both partners work (in that it would be more advantageous for them to file separately). They're not doing this out of malice or implicit bias - they are simply ignorant of the socioeconomic conditions African Americans live in! But it still has consequences, as low-income black Americans where both partners work may find that they would actually save money on taxes if they filed separately. (Most low-income black Americans might assume that getting married *must* be better than filing separately, and so are probably also unaware of this tax situation, and don't realize that they are not optimizing their taxes.)
As you point out - "in the event that [cases of structural racism existed, then changes would be necessitated]." Frankly, I think this sort of thing - looking at how assumptions on how people live their lives, how socioeconomic ignorance can make life harder or more expensive, etc. is much more valuable and important to solve than poring over the soul of white people. Implicit bias is still important, but so far, we don't seem to have a great way to change it, as Singal has pointed out.
I don't think every structure must be dismantled. For one, I don't even see how that's possible, so it kind of seems like a non-starter. (Fun fact: some lefty extreme-progressive academics think academia itself is unsalvageably racist, and must be dismantled and remade. Universities are hesitant to put their work out, for understandable reasons.) For example, I don't think we need to be ashamed of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and the founders as a whole. The work Jefferson did in the Declaration, for example, has served as inspiration for liberatory groups throughout the world, regardless of race. We absolutely must grapple with the heinous things he did as slavemaster, and we shouldn't worship him the way some people seem to (American civic religion is a trip). But is really necessary to throw him out? What about other founding fathers? What about John Adams and Samuel Adams, who were against the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery in general?
I do think that the attitude that white people are better than other races was extremely common at the founding of this country (what critical race theorists call "white supremacy" - I don't like that term because it's associated with the KKK and Nazis specifically, so people are confused when they hear that George Washington "is a white supremacist'). But I also think it's important to point out the legacy of resistance, both from black people and from white people. There has always been debate and pushback. We do ourselves and the United States a disservice if we ignore the people who historically grappled with their own ignorance and prejudice, who risked social ridicule to fight for their values, who even risked their own lives because they believed that some aspect of their dominant racial paradigm was unspeakably wrong.
I think I agree with you on some things, then, like thinking too much importance is placed on racist soul-searching, how some conceptions of racism seem to allow for "no way out" (if you agree, you're racist - if you disagree, you're racist), and how there is a little bit of a destructive glee in wanting to "fully dismantle all structures, because they are all racist", but I disagree on the scale of how important structural racism is.
Apologies for the long post - I think I still missed some of your points, but I've already rambled on long enough. :)
No. Apology NOT accepted, because none NEEDED! (I just happen to appreciate long posts, probably because i've produced no small number myself. ;-)
TY for reply. You have some interesting points. But I think You're pretty far off-base on a few of them, and I don't wanna hurt Your feelings. Plus, I'd hafta give it considerable more thought before I responded in any event. Up to You. TY again.
Thank you for the considered conversation. In recent years, I've been more of a critic of critical race theory and its practitioners than a defender, so it's interesting to sort of put myself back in that point of view and think, what is worth taking from this area?
I would like to know which ones you think I'm off base on. There are always things one may not consider or know about. And I know it takes quite a while to write a considerate, reasonable, readable response, so there's no rush.
Okay, here goes nuthin.
Yeah, I agree the loudest voices in the racist "anti-racist" movement are the least capable of actually helping anyone. DiAngelo amongst the worst of the lot. But she's grifted her way to being a multi-millionaire, so she has that "in favor" of herself. What bothers me most about her is, like You "said High Tone, if You don't agree with her 100%, Your in denial.
I would go along with Your definition of what structural racism is. By that definition, I don't think it's a useful concept.
I believe that the idea of structural racism was born outta impatience. Blacks thought that, with the passage of civil rights laws, everything would immediately change. They were right that, although the law changed, there were still obstacles to their advancing. That's an example of Black myopia. Society doesn't change as fast the law does. Simple as that.
My concept of implicit bias is a bit different. Yeah, it's a case of *deeply unconscious* negativity towards people who are different. I wonder... Have Blacks been tested? Because they likely have as much, if not more, implicit bias as White people.
I think the example You raise isn't so much a case of implicit bias as it's a case of applying, perhaps errant, stereotypes. My understanding is the one-a the most tested theories in psychology is the validity of stereotypes. Young Black males are killing each other by an order of magnitude more than others do, right? So, to me anyway, what You experienced is not an uncommon reaction. So I don't think You should hold it against Yourself. That is, as long as You recognize quickly that it *is* based on a stereotype. And that sometimes it doesn't apply to the situation.
Other times it might.
Me? I was lucky not to experience negative depictions of Blacks in my Youth. And as a teenager I experienced a very deep, positive, experience of Black people.
So perhaps I can add some insight. Your theory that it's likely that all structures in society are racist is an exaggeration that, to me, doesn't merit much consideration. Yeah, it was true before the Civil Rights act. That was a period of legal apartheid, right?
Today? You seem to be under the misapprehension that things have remained largely the same. They haven't. I don't know the statistics, but Black people in positions of power just doesn't compare to what it was back then. If You observe *closely* over the past five years, Black people punch *WAY ABOVE* their weight. That's how we entered a period of Black Supremacists being in power, right?
Granted, most Black Supremacists are Caucasian. Still...
Your statement that White people don't know what it's like to be poor is somewhat true. But I think it largely misses the point. Technically, only 20% of the people know what it's like to be in the bottom quintile. But there are a *lotta* people, both Black and White, who live paycheck to paycheck. Without the savings to be able to survive an unexpected expense of a few hundred dollars. I've been there myself. I consider those people to fall in the "poor" category.
But when You're talking about the people who are capable of creating massive social structures, I think Your view is somewhat.. How should I say.. I guess I would say that You seem to be somewhat constrained as to what changes have been going *on* these past five years. The, IMO, buffoon Kendi has created a massive social structure. BLM? Same. Hannah-Jones and Coates?
These are not White people.
But maybe You don't consider their doings to be creating *massive* social structures. Okay fine. Then the people You are referring to are the one-percenters. The politically connected. Those in Big Tech. Their wealth and power has been consolidated in just these past five or ten years, right? *Those* are the social structures that rule the day.
As far as not being ignorant of the socioeconomic conditions of poor Blacks, You exhibit Your own ignorance. Sorry. You showed some implicit bias that is common these days. Prejudice against White people. You seem to think that poor Whites are it materially better position than Blacks. On the contrary. Blacks are given *illegal* precedence in things like getting the vaccine and getting Federal money and so many other ways. For no good reason that any logical person can see.
I agree it's more important to consider how people live than to consider implicit bias. Unless You're gonna turn the bright light of inquiry onto the implicit bias that Blacks have, which I don't think has been given much consideration at all, AFAIK. Prejudice again, AFAIK.
And, no. We do *not* need to grapple with the "heinous things he [Jefferson] did as slavemaster..." And we *absolutely should* "worship him the way some people seem to.." Like You pointed out: I refer You to the experiment some Professor did when he asked a bunch-a privileged White kids how many of them would-a joined the Abolition Movement. They *all* would-a, right? Yeah, riiiiight. You think these punks would-a actually risked their *life* for the principle in *that day and age?!?*
Nup. No way.
There's totally, completely, and ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT to the idea of judging people in the past by present day conditions. How You think today's Woke are gonna be judged? (Weeeel, depends who wins and writes the history, true.) So, no. People back then didn't grapple with their own existence. *You're* lacking in imagination, IMO, when You look into the past.
I agree with the second-to-last paragraph. (And disagree with the last, as I posted above. ;-)
Okay. I'll take a shot at it. Probably tomorrow, on account-a my day ends early.
But I should warn You that I don't take a whole *lotta* time when I write, other than the typing. If something comes out considerate and readable, that's my aim. If it comes out reasonable, that's a miracle. ;-)
I'd chime in and say structural racism is a totally unfalsifiable proposition, so it would benefit from less study the same way the field of psychology was improved by dialing back the Freudian theories of psychoanalysis.