When "Anti-Racism" Is Itself Racist


Hans Bader (Liberty Unyielding) has a long post on the subject, and see also David Bernstein's "It's Getting Harder and Harder to Distinguish Satire from Earnest Wokeness" post below.

NEXT: Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Blackmail Statute as Overbroad

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As so often, I don't so much disagree as that I wonder about people's priorities in terms of what they choose to blog about. Thread after thread here on the VC explodes into proto-fascist Trump-worship, and the Great Leader and Bernstein write three posts in as many hours about how tough it is to be a white guy these days.

    1. "Noooooo, don't look at my team literally espousing fascist tropes! Noooooo, don't look at my team literally book burning and engaging in antisemitism! Noooooo, don't look at my team censoring academics, and rioting over normal liberal discourse!
      Look over here instead!
      Orange Hitler was rude on twitter again!"
      - t. Martinned

      1. P.S. It should be food for thought that you so unquestioningly assume that the Republicans are not "my side". Of the US Presidential elections that have been held in my lifetime, in at least half the cases I would have voted for the Republican or at least that candidate would have had a good chance at my vote. (Eg. McCain would have gotten my vote if it wasn't for Palin, but it was still a close call.) Of course, I'm not a US voter anyway, but that should tell you something about how far the US Republican Party has moved to the right. It's not me that moved, it's you.

        1. Eg. McCain would have gotten my vote if it wasn’t for Palin

          The sad thing is that you not only think there are people here stupid enough to believe you, but you also don't recognize the idiocy inherent in that statement if it were actually true.

          1. I often have a good laugh imagining somebody who claims they miss the good old of days where ANTIFA supporting Republicans supposedly existed, actually being teleported back in time.

            1. Go ahead, google who said this. I'll wait.

              "Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America."

              1. wow you can reach all the way back to bush. That really doesn't say much since establishment repubs are still pretty ignorant about islam.

                1. You mean the last Republican president before Trump? Yes, I can remember back that far.

        2. I agree Martinned! Lets go back to the good old days of sensible 50s Republicans supporting mass riots, transgender bathrooms, and proper pronouns!

    2. If you want Trump derangement and white shaming 24/7 you can tune into CNN, MSNBC, Buzzfeed, Yahoo, Twitter, HUFFPO, WAPOO, Bustle, Teen Vogue, NowThis, OccupyDems, NYT, Ilya's articles, and +90% of the rest of media anytime you want. I'm sorry that not every single corner of the internet caters enough to the ANTIFA crowd as you want.

  2. It's getting harder and harder to distinguish satire from racist liberterianism

    1. Example of serious "racist libertarianism" that's looks like satire to you? (I'm missing it; I must be very thick _and_ lacking in a sense of humor.)

    2. You may want to note that Bader's reference to the Rutger's directive is factually incorrect. The email at the source is poorly written, but it clearly directs the department to stop their current practice of de-emphasizing grammar and structure.

      1. Is there a quotation there you'd like to present as an example of "racist libertarianism" that you find so excessive as to be mistakable as being satire? (Again...forgive me...I get stuck on words, their meanings, and a presumption that you are saying what your words imply.)

  3. I would expect a Klu Klux Klan or Nazi polemic to claim that “hard work,” “self-reliance,” “courtesy,” "timeliness," "good grammar," the "scientific method" and “objective, rational linear thinking” are all white things.
    This kinda proves that it's not hyperbole to say that the left really has become fascist.

  4. I see a lot of blather in the comments, but no substantive rebuttal of Bader's position, that anti-racism is today's legalized racism. We are back in the 50's.

    1. Also ... is there a respectable format of Bader's paper that can be sent around (i.e. without all the ridiculous ads and cheap come-ons to other articles)?

    2. That's because he's just yelling that affirmative action is the REAL racism.

      We've had that conversation many times before.

      It's a dumb semantic game that's not much less empty than name-calling. Not really worth engaging.

      1. I find it convenient when the other side chooses to unilaterally disarm. Please, by all means continue to find such things not worth engaging. It doesn't mean that the other side will stop speaking, nor that they won't find people who will listen.

      2. We’ve had that conversation many times before.

        Yes, but not honestly. Really the counter argument has taken two forms. One form involves a definition of "racism" that involves little but tortured logic, semantics and motivated reasoning. With this one, racism is not so much categorical thinking about race but involves a subjective, bullshit power balance so that the thinker can state "It's not really racism when I do it ..."

        The other form involves taking the objective fact that affirmative action involves real and demonstrable special consideration based on race (i.e. what most people would define as racism) and claiming this fact is not important due to some form of anecdotal evidence, usually some sarcastic response with incredulity that "white people" are actually suffering and usually by the same buffoon who in other circumstances would be complaining that anecdotal is worthless when points are scored against him.

        It's a dumb semantic game precisely because one side of the debate has nothing more than dumb semantic arguments and prefers to keep it that way. I do admit that it is pure sophist art to put forth the semantic argument and then claim it is not a worthwhile debate due to ones own actions.

  5. I'm glad more people are paying attention to this nonsense, because it's now being taught in our schools, if not yet enforced by police as it is in the UK and elsewhere.

    The underlying problem is a nonsense view of the world called intersectionality, which advances a whole list of nonsense propositions including:

    (1) White men control, and are the oppressors of, the world. As such they are never entitled to complain of bias against them.
    (2) Groups such as the protected classes of civil rights law are victims of that oppression.
    (3) Which, and how many, victim groups you belong to determines your merit and the degree of favorable special treatment you're entitled to throughout life.
    (4) All the above judgments of people apply to every individual, regardless of whether he or she has actually victimized others and/or been mistreated himself. The notion that rights and responsibilities are individually earned is racist.
    (5) Wanting a color-blind or meritocratic society is racist. So is denying any of these statements.

    As far as I'm concerned, believing any of the above ought to get you sent to the nearest funny farm, full stop.

  6. Sorry about the glitches in reading my blog post. Here is a fraction of its text:

    America’s colleges, media, and cultural institutions are being swept by the ideology of “anti-racism.” It...promotes bigoted, lower expectations for black people.

    “Rationality” and “hard work” are vestiges of racism, declared the “anti-racism” web site of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture....

    The bible of “anti-racism” is “How to Be an Antiracist,” by Boston University’s Ibram X. Kendi. The “key concept” from How to Be an Antiracist is that to remedy the underrepresentation of minority groups, you need to engage in discrimination in the opposite direction — i.e., discriminate against whites. As the book explains,

    “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

    Kendi’s tenets are now an article of faith on America’s college campuses. For example, Cornell’s president told her university to read “‘How to Be an Antiracist,’ by National Book Award winner Ibram X. Kendi.”

    Dr. Kendi’s views are celebrated by the Washington Post and the New York Times. The Times touts Kendi’s axiom that “When I see racial disparities, I see racism.”

    Kendi’s claim ignores the fact that many racial disparities are not caused by racism. For example, Latinos live three years longer than whites, on average, even though doctors don’t discriminate in their favor. Asians make more money than whites, on average. And while blacks make less money than whites, on average, immigrants from African countries like Nigeria actually make more money than whites do.

    Racial disparities exist everywhere in society and the world, often for reasons unrelated to racism, as the black economist Thomas Sowell chronicles in his book Discrimination and Disparities. To abolish racial disparities would require a totalitarian government, says black economist Glenn Loury.

    In the past, studies often found that racial and gender disparities were caused by factors other than racism or sexism. But now, researchers are now being pressured not to publish such studies...

    The courts have rejected the idea that disparities automatically constitute discrimination......

  7. The deeper meaning of the poster is that an individual's intrinsic worth does not have to be defined by society. The way the poster went about trying to say that happened to be racist.

  8. When Wokes and Racists Actually Agree on Everything


  9. The Volokh Conspiracy has operated for
    13 DAYS
    without using a vile racial slur and for
    453 DAYS
    without engaging in content-based censorship..

    I suppose we should admire the restraint.

Please to post comments