The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Columbia University Professor Andreas Wimmer Questions "Race-Centrism"
In the course of the research for my forthcoming book, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America (now available for pre-order!), I read several hundred books and articles about race and ethnicity in the United States, some of which turned out be directly related my book; others turned to be more peripheral. One of the more remarkable articles in the latter category is Andreas Wimmer, Race-Centrism: A Critique and a Research Agenda, published in Ethnic and Racial Studies in 2015. It's remarkable both because Wimmer questions accepted truisms among sociologists and anthropologists who write about race, and because Wimmer engaged in such questioning as a professor at Princeton (he is now at Columbia). As VC readers well-know, questioning widely-accepted academic views about race in the United States is not exactly the most direct route to academic prominence.
Here is an excerpt:
[Three prominent recent academic books on race] base their analyses on five axiomatic assumptions that together form what I call the paradigm of race-centrism. First, race is the primary principle of stratification in the USA. Second, all racial inequality can be explained by the racism (explicit or implicit, conscious or not) of the white majority and/or the state institutions that operate on its behalf. Third, racial inequality has transformed but not lessened, or even worsened over the past fifty years. Fourth, racial groups represent collective actors with shared interests and outlooks on the world. And fifth, race plays a similarly structuring role around the world.
These axioms of race-centrism, I suggest, need to be opened up to critical scrutiny and the empirical exploration of alternative possible interpretations, empirical generalizations and analytical stances. In other words, rather than treating them as axiomatic truths, to be defended against the common intellectual-political enemy of 'colour-blindness', they should be taken as argumentative tenets in search of confirmation. I will discuss each of these five assumptions subsequently, explore what empirical and analytical questions they raise, and discuss which other processes and mechanisms need to be brought into the analytical and empirical picture and properly disentangled from the ones that race-centrism focuses upon.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Are you aware of any follow-up articles, by Andreas or others? (I'll do my own search later, but if you've already done the research, so to speak, there's no need to reinvent the wheel).
I am not, but probably the easiest way to find out would be to shoot him an email and ask.
Cleanup on aisle five.
I'll be interested to read what follows.
The fifth axiom confuses me a little.
Is this a common axiom only in the US, or abroad, too? Because it would appear to me that much of this reasoning, whether valid or not, only makes sense in the context of US history, and that of just a few other nations.
I think he means that this race-centrist paradigm is indeed universal. Being an outgrowth of Marxist threory, universalism is kind of a pre-requisite.
Outside the US, colonialism is paired with racism as the oppressive forces that drive inequity and inequality.
I think they mean that racism as a prime variable occurs worldwide not that the idea that it does occurs worldwide.
So right off the bat a question arises: why has the author chosen to discuss the three books she chooses? She mentions that one is "one of the three most often quoted books on race." I didn't notice anything on what makes the other two she chooses 'prominent.' Oddly, she doesn't include the two most quoted books she notes.
I thought the linked article was clear on that point: They were selected on the basis of how often they were quoted.
I saw that claim about the first one, was it made about the other two?
"Three major books on race in the USA have now appeared in updated editions. Omi and Winant’s ( 2014) Racial Formation has been published in its third edition. It represents one of the three most often quoted books on race –after Wilson’s ( 2012)
The Truly Disadvantaged and Massey and Denton’s ( 1994) American Apartheid. Bonilla-Silva’s ( 2013) "
So, all three books are called out on the basis of of how often they're quoted on race.
But Wimmer does not focus on Wilson or Denton's work, instead he focuses on Omi and Winant’s, Bonilla-Silva’s and Feagin’s, right?
Sure, but it was the more recently published. Which seems as good a reason as any to focus on it.
Haven't really had a chance to read past the first page, anyway.
So there's no claim that the other two were most quoted, just a claim that he was going to focus on the third most quoted and two others for...reasons?
Since he says, "most quoted after, the implication is in fact that the other two were MORE quoted.
And "just published" IS a comprehensible reason.
Uh, yeah, the two MORE quoted were not focused on. He picked two other books and didn't say why they were 'prominent.'
No, he did say. "Most quoted after".
If I said the B777 was the largest airplane "after" the 747 and A380, would you be puzzled why I'd mentioned the latter two airplanes?
Good grief, we've been through this already.
"Omi and Winant’s ( 2014) Racial Formation has been published in its third edition. It represents one of the three most often quoted books on race –after Wilson’s ( 2012) The Truly Disadvantaged and Massey and Denton’s ( 1994) American Apartheid."
HE DOESN'T FOCUS ON WILSON OR DENTON'S BOOKS.
So yes he says Omi and Winant's was chosen because its the third most quoted book on race. But he DOESN'T FOCUS ON THE TWO MOST QUOTED. So my question is WHY DID HE CHOOSE THE TWO BOOKS-WHICH ARE NOT THE TWO HE IDENTIFIED AS THE TWO MOST QUOTED-THAT HE DID TO FOCUS ON.
Yes, we have been through this: IT WAS JUST PUBLISHED.
In what world is that not an understandable motive for paying attention to it?
Are you perhaps under the weather a bit, and mainlining cough medicine?
"racial inequality has transformed but not lessened, or even worsened over the past fifty years"
?
What's the matter? Think there should be another comma after "worsened"?
"Polarization has transformed but not lessened, or even worsened over the past fifty years"
Seem odd?
Well, it seems false, certainly, but it's entirely comprehensible as a statement.
It makes two assertions:
1) That polarization has "transformed".
2) That it has not lessened, and may have even worsened, over the past 50 years.
The 'even worsened' goes (along with the 'lessened') with the 'not,' right? So it's not saying it may have even worsened.
"Polarization has transformed but not lessened, or even worsened over the past fifty years"
You're reading it as "Polarization has transformed but not (lessened, or even worsened) over the past fifty years"
I'd read it as, "Polarization has transformed but (not lessened,) or (even worsened) over the past fifty years"
Punctuation could have been a bit more precise, to be sure, but the sentence makes more sense parsed the way I do.
You just said it reads "That it has not lessened, and may have even worsened, over the past 50 years."
But the "may have" isn't there at all.
" has transformed but not (lessened, or even worsened) over the past fifty years" is literally (sans the ()) how it was written...
"May" was part of a paraphrase. Since you find the original ambiguous, I was trying to express my understanding of what it meant more clearly than the original.
I don't 'find' it to be ambiguous, it is. I mean, you have to put words (may have) into it to make a meaning out of it.
My stubbed toe's pain has transformed but not lessened, or even worsened in the past week.
That's an oddly worded sentence. I mean, what's the condition of my toe? There's no justification for reading 'may have' into it before 'even worsened.' You're trying to give it a meaning it doesn't, on its face, have. I understand though because I think the odd wording invites that kind of thing.
Badly punctuated, but unless you assume Andreas was writing nonsense, it's not hard to understand.
No, it's not punctuation. Read literally on its face the most reasonable meaning is that racial inequality has stayed the same (not lessened, or even worsened), but that would be an odd thing for racial inequality salesmen to say.
You're just putting two words in there for no reason other than you think it gives it a nice meaning. But those two words are not in the sentence and change its meaning from what it literally reads as.
I read it (ie, before reading any of these comments) to mean, "it has not gotten at all better, nor gotten at all worse, over the past 50 years." I agree that it's a more sensible reading they way a few of you have suggested (otherwise, it's sorta gibberish)...but I also read it differently. We can agree it was poorly written, at least.
"...Second, all racial inequality can be explained by the racism (explicit or implicit, conscious or not) of the white majority and/or the state institutions that operate on its behalf...."
It's the "ALL" here that rings false. I have read dozens of books on racism (including many that challenge the premise), and have heard, over the decades, literally hundreds of speakers (on all sides of this issue). NO ONE that I know of says that ALL racial inequality can be explained in this way. I'd suggest that the author use "many" (or even "most," if you think you can get away with something that broad). Saying that All (or None) is attributable to X makes that writer look like a liar or a foolish person . . . or, again, as someone comfortable with sloppy writing.
The "all", I think, is shorthand for, "As a first approximation, all".
It's the idea that you can treat racism as the default explanation for any racial disparities you see, with a high burden of proof to overcome before any other explanation can be accepted. Rather than just another explanation among others, with no special priority.
Agreed these "axioms" are all, to some extent, exaggerations, for all but a relatively small number of fanatics.
Grammatically, no. The 'not' is joined to 'lessened' and on the other side of the 'or' from 'even worsened'.
Granted, it's poor wording. I had to read it twice to parse the sentence. But it is technically correct.
Those with no argument quibble about spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Third, racial inequality has transformed but not lessened, or even worsened over the past fifty years.
Let me 'play back' how I interpreted the sentence, Brett. You tell me if it comports with your understanding.
There is no more, or less, racial inequality in the US today, than in the last 50 years. The level (or amount, if you will) of racial inequality is unchanged. What has changed is how racial inequality is expressed in American society; it was transformed (but still there).
That is how I interpreted the sentence.
I think Brett's got the interpretation right, but for the wrong reason.
"racial inequality has [transformed but not lessened], [or even worsened] over the past fifty years"
Racial inequality has changed. It has not gotten better. And maybe it's even gotten worse. If the intended meaning was that it has gotten neither better nor worse, then the sentence makes less sense.
"racial inequality has transformed but not lessened, or worsened over the past fifty years" (removing "even") would make this sentence mean what you interpret, but would be even better if the "worsened" clause was eliminated entirely, as such ""racial inequality has transformed but not lessened over the past fifty years".
Breaking it down syntactically, the only way to make sense of the inclusion of "or even worsened" is that this was modifying the statement to say that not only is it definitely not better, it is possibly even worse.
"Racial inequality has changed. It has not gotten better. And maybe it's even gotten worse."
Keeping in mind that this is an 'axiom' Andreas disputes, rather than accepting. And I'd dispute it, too.
Of course, one can measure "inequality" in many ways. Income, wealth, political success, educational attainment, social problems such as crime rates or broken homes.
On some of these, inequality has climbed, on others it has declined.
It makes two assertions:
1) That polarization has "transformed".
2) That it has not lessened, and may have even worsened, over the past 50 years.
Correct. Though, I would modify your second statement as follows:
2) That not only has it not lessened, it possibly has even worsened, over the past 50 years.
I'm also confused about something, this article was published in the 5th ranked Ethnic Studies journal and the author works at an Ivy League school, but I had it on good authority that academic ethnic studies exercise Stalinistic level censorship of any work questioning their shared ideology and that all authors of such works are immediately and thoroughly cancelled...
I'm pretty sure that an evil can exist without being comprehensively suffered by every potential victim.
Huh, so it can happen in degrees? And maybe we should be wary of generalizations and, even worse, hyperbolic descriptions? Interesting.
Bernstein said "he is now at Columbia." What Bernstein didn't mention is he's been detailed to clean rest rooms there until he gets his mind right.
Wow, five axioms. Is Wimmer positing some alternative definition of, "axiom?" If not, he starts out hip-deep in nonsense, and in peril to sink farther.
There is zero reason why a critic of racism needs to accept each of the posited axioms as self-evidently true. I doubt very many such critics would accept any of them on that basis. A practical anti-racist could cheerfully deny every one of those, "axioms," and concede instead that causes other than racism also apply, and maybe even predominate in each instance—but then insist that does nothing to prove anti-racism does not continue to be warranted, and for moral reasons should even be prioritized over the others.
Indeed, a practical anti-racist may even acknowledge other causes of, for instance, stratification in society. But say that so long as racism is also imposing, those other explanations can deliver neither practical salience in policy discussions, nor moral primacy. Especially not if those others seem intended to bypass and invalidate anti-racism. The anti-racist may demand that for moral reasons racial explanations need to be addressed first.
For the anti-racist, although other explanations apply, they must not be entertained as substitutes for prioritizing action against racism. To the anti-racist, there is no contradiction in conceding other explanations apply, but demanding that those be set aside until amelioration of the moral evil of racism has been largely accomplished.
The anti-racist remains mindful about red herrings, subject changes, and purposeful distractions from an anti-racist focus. With regard to Wimmer-style arguments, the anti-racist may struggle to evaluate forthrightly whether to attribute moral blindness, or cryptic pro-racism.
Of course, right-wing opponents of anti-racism bridle at all that, and wonder why they are not entitled to their alternative explanations. Why, they ask, must they put up with all this annoying anti-racism? The impulse to ask the question turns out to be the answer to it.
All right thinking people reject racism. Anyone who thinks clearly about it realizes that it is irrational and immoral to attribute characteristics one attributes to a group to any individual member of that group.
Instead, "anti-racist" as you understand it seems to mean "people I like". And the so-called anti-anti-racists are really just people you don't like.
Of course, if you reject all 5 of those axioms (which are absurd statements, but ones that many "anti-racists" believe), then I believe we mostly have common ground and just differ on some of the details.
However, many people are tired of being called racists (or anti-anti racists, which is effectively a nice way of calling someone a racist) because, we "bridle" at the placing of (what they have deemed) racial issues on an altar above all other considerations.
Relief for those tired of being called racists is available immediately. They can simply join those making the best-supported cases against continuing racial injustice in U.S. policy making. The quicker that ends, the quicker the nation can legitimately move on to governance which no longer needs policies to take account of racist legacy problems.
What will prove unwise for the tired is to continue to obstruct anti-racism. Race-conscious advocacy will not disappear while race-related injustices perpetuate. Leaving the injustices to fester, while trying to suppress the advocacy, is a formula to turn tiredness into exhaustion.
"Relief for those tired of being called racists is available immediately. They can simply join those making the best-supported cases against continuing racial injustice in U.S. policy making."
No, that just guarantees you'll be called a racist.
"Indeed, a practical anti-racist may even acknowledge other causes of, for instance, stratification in society. But say that so long as racism is also imposing, those other explanations can deliver neither practical salience in policy discussions, nor moral primacy."
Well, that makes no sense. I mean, supposing that racism were 90-99% of the cause, like during some periods in the South during Jim Crow, sure, there'd be little point in discussion.
But we're hardly in the depths of Jim Crow. And if racism were, say, 50% of the problem? You might as well dismiss doing something about racism, as dismiss another equally salient cause.
Sometimes I suspect modern race crusaders wish they'd been around during the Civil Rights marches, and pretend things are as bad now so they can claim some of the glory for themselves.
I am not sure the so-called crusaders of today are akin with the civil rights activists. They are espousing a conventional, majoritarian principle. They are not taking on a system that was largely hostile to them. It takes no bravery to be post angry things on Twitter, which is largely what the activism consists of. It took guts to go to travel to states with overtly racist governments and to do their thing there.
Not akin to the civil rights activists, except in their own imaginations. Which demand that things be as bad today, or else how could they be just as heroic?
Not merely the imagined bravery of angrily standing up to nobody and posting inane strawman fallacies on social media, but doing so from the safety of a fairly large in-group. The modern 'activist' has nothing in common with the civil rights activists of the 1960s; they certainly seem to show little interest in civil rights. Witness Lathrop's risible pedantry, scolding and approaching threatening language about 'obstructing' the new racism that is fashionable with his in-group.
"[R]acial inequality has transformed but not lessened . . . over the past fifty years."
I have lived during that fifty years (Jan. 1972 to today) and almost 30 years more. I have been wracking my brain to understand how racial inequality in this country has "not lessened" during that period. I don't think I've heard a Black person called "boy" or even "colored" in the last 50 years. I have known and worked with successful Black lawyers and businesspersons; none of them had to go to the back door of the office. I'm not big on "exclusive" private clubs, but I have enough exprience to say that most of them would have been more ready to accept a Black member with my resume than to accept me.
I think what "transformed but not lessened" really means is that Black people (and their White advocates) aren't satisfied with the progress so far, and they want more. And God bless them, they're right! They shouldn't be satisfied. But claiming that all White people are racist, and the whole structure of American society is racist, and that progress in race relations hasn't happened or doesn't count, is not the way to build progress toward a better world for all of us.
" But claiming that all White people are racist, and the whole structure of American society is racist, and that progress in race relations hasn't happened or doesn't count, is not the way to build progress toward a better world for all of us. "
Just as pretending that racism has been conquered, or that much of American society is not still infected by vestigial racism, or that racist assertions and arguments should be treated with respect, or that much of the Republican Party's conduct is not calculated to flatter racists or aggrieve Blacks (voter suppression, for example), is no way for an adult to earn respect in today's liberal-libertarian America mainstream.
Others are welcome to wallow in political correctness, and to enable racists to hide behind euphemisms such as "traditional values," or "colorblind," or "conservative values." I have lost my taste for political correctness, so I call a bigot a bigot. Conservatives seem to hate that.
But claiming that all White people are racist, and the whole structure of American society is racist, and that progress in race relations hasn't happened or doesn't count, is not the way to build progress toward a better world for all of us.
VonSalzen, let's try out some nuance. Let's put you, in your imagination, in the place of a middle-aged, rising, lower-middle-class Black suburbanite, who is doing pretty well, maybe in Prince Georges County, MD. From that position, what do you have to say about these:
1. All White people are not racist, but many of them are. And the number who are is far larger than the number who think they are.
2. The structure of American society is not as racist as previously. More-overt social manifestations of racism are far less—almost gone in public places outside exceptional venues here and there. But economic effects of previous structural racism continue to be pervasive throughout society, and continue to put Blacks generally at substantial economic disadvantage. Attempts to adjust the economic structure of American society to alleviate that ongoing problem are met with fierce, systematic resistance.
3. Across America, police practices and personnel continue to demonstrate widespread racism, to a degree little short of pervasive. Those police practices are reinforced by a criminal justice system which is also systematically biased against Blacks, and which continues, typically, to protect unwarranted police discrimination against Blacks. There are exceptions in some locations.
4. Since desegregation, Black people have benefited by improved educational opportunities. But America has not figured out, except in a few exceptional venues, how to deliver anything like equal educational opportunity to Black people.
5. It is a genuine public policy problem to figure out any way to continue to improve status, respect, safety, and economic equality for Blacks. Efforts to accomplish those goals are systematically resisted by claims that the time for such policies is past.
6. Given widespread social inequality for Blacks, as manifested in Numbers 1.– 5. above, it is objectively racist advocacy to insist that it is illegitimate for government to take any account of race when it makes policy. Nevertheless, that advocacy is publicly announced by many of America's most important public officials, including even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
1. All
whitepeople are not racist, but some of them are, and many of those have constructed tendentious definitions of racism that render their own sort of racism "not racism" on the basis of their own race, or the race they're prejudiced against. Essentially defining racism in terms of whether you agree with their politics, not whether you discriminate on the basis of race.2. The structure of American society is not remotely as racist as it once was, but is bifurcating, some parts have decisively rejected racism, while others are backsliding into a new form of racism called "anti-racism".
3. Across America, police are under attack, because the very real racial demographics of crime can't be squared with ideological notions of what those demographics should be, and fantasy trumps objective reality. And the police, intolerably, keep responding to the reality, not the fantasy.
4. Blacks have benefited greatly from improved educational opportunities, but America has not figured out yet, how to get enough blacks to take advantage of those opportunities.
5. It is a genuine public policy problem how to persuade blacks to desist from self-destructive behaviors which keep them from turning equal rights into equal results.
6. Since objectively racist people can't accept that once you have equal rights, everything the government is legally entitled to do has been done, they keep demanding unconstitutional racial discrimination to substitute for blacks taking up the burden of uplifting themselves, as so many oppressed minorities have done before them.
There are sound reasons that advanced America has rejected your political preferences and positions, Mr. Bellmore. Your bigot-curious approach to racism -- still wondering about that Obama birth certificate, Mr. Bellmore -- and other strains of bigotry is a prominent reason.
Bellmore, America abounds with Black people who are smarter than you, more energetic and diligent than you are, morally superior to you, more socially responsible than you, and more constructive in their outlook than you are. Your contempt for those people overflows your comments. It is your contempt which tells the world what you are.
"Bellmore, America abounds with Black people who are smarter than you, more energetic and diligent than you are, morally superior to you, more socially responsible than you, and more constructive in their outlook than you are."
Did you somehow get the impression that I'd disagree with that? Of course there are blacks who are smarter than me, statistically speaking, several thousand.
It also abounds with black people who are stupider than me, lazier than me, and socially irresponsible moral reprobates. Take a quick look at the demographics of crime and you'll know which are more common.
lathrop, give us a collective break. Your jaundiced view of America, and American society is tired and shopworn.
"These axioms of race-centrism, I suggest, need to be opened up to critical scrutiny"
Good luck with that.
Unspeakable truths about racial inequality in America December 28, 2021 06:30 AM
By Glenn Loury (One of those blacks Stephen correctly observes are smarter than me.)
"The first unspeakable truth: Downplaying behavioral disparities by race is actually a “bluff”
Socially mediated behavioral issues lie at the root of today’s racial inequality problem. They are real and must be faced squarely if we are to grasp why racial disparities persist. This is a painful necessity. Activists on the Left of American politics claim that “white supremacy,” “implicit bias,” and old-fashioned “anti-black racism” are sufficient to account for black disadvantage. But this is a bluff that relies on “cancel culture” to be sustained. Those making such arguments are, in effect, daring you to disagree with them. They are threatening to “cancel” you if you do not accept their account: You must be a “racist,” you must believe something is intrinsically wrong with black people if you do not attribute pathological behavior among them to systemic injustice. You must think blacks are inferior, for how else could one explain the disparities? “Blaming the victim” is the offense they will convict you of — if you’re lucky.
I claim this is a dare, a debater’s trick. Because, at the end of the day, what are those folks saying when they declare that “mass incarceration” is “racism” — that the high number of blacks in jails is, self-evidently, a sign of racial antipathy? To respond, “No, it’s mainly a sign of anti-social behavior by criminals who happen to be black,” one risks being dismissed as a moral reprobate. This is so, even if the speaker is black. Just ask Justice Clarence Thomas. Nobody wants to be canceled.
But we should all want to stay in touch with reality. Common sense and much evidence suggest that, on the whole, people are not being arrested, convicted, and sentenced because of their race. Those in prison are, in the main, those who have broken the law — who have hurt others or stolen things or otherwise violated the basic behavioral norms which make civil society possible. Seeing prisons as a racist conspiracy to confine black people is an absurd proposition. No serious person could believe it. Not really. Indeed, it is self-evident that those taking lives on the streets of St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago are, to a man, behaving despicably. Moreover, those bearing the cost of such pathology, almost exclusively, are other blacks. An ideology that ascribes this violent behavior to racism is laughable. Of course, this is an unspeakable truth, but no writer or social critic, of whatever race, should be canceled for saying so.
Or consider the educational achievement gap. Anti-racism advocates, in effect, are daring you to notice that some groups send their children to elite colleges and universities in outsize numbers compared to other groups due to the fact that their academic preparation is magnitudes higher and better and finer. They are daring you to declare such excellence to be an admirable achievement. One isn’t born knowing these things. One acquires such intellectual mastery through effort. Why are some youngsters acquiring these skills and others not? That is a very deep and interesting question, one which I am quite prepared to entertain. But the simple retort “racism” is laughable — as if such disparities have nothing to do with behavior, with cultural patterns, with what peer groups value, with how people spend their time, with what they identify as being critical to their own self-respect. Anyone actually believing such nonsense is a fool, I maintain.
Asians are said, sardonically, according to the politically correct script, to be a “model minority.” Well, as a matter of fact, a pretty compelling case can be made that “culture” is critical to their success. Read Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou’s book The Asian American Achievement Paradox . They have interviewed Asian families in Southern California, trying to learn how these children get into Dartmouth College and Columbia University and Cornell University with such high rates. They find that these families exhibit cultural patterns, embrace values, adopt practices, engage in behavior, and follow disciplines that orient them in such a way as to facilitate the achievements of their children. It defies common sense, as well as the evidence, to assert that they do not or, conversely, to assert that the paucity of African Americans performing near the top of the intellectual spectrum — I am talking here about academic excellence and about the low relative numbers of blacks who exhibit it — has nothing to do with the behavior of black people, that this outcome is due to institutional forces alone. That, quite frankly, is an absurdity. No serious person could believe it.
Nor does anybody actually believe that 70% of African American babies being born to a woman without a husband is (1) a good thing or (2) due to anti-black racism. People say this, but they don’t believe it. They are bluffing — daring you to observe that the 21st-century failures of African Americans to take full advantage of the opportunities created by the 20th century’s revolution of civil rights are palpable and damning. These failures are being denied at every turn, and these denials are sustained by a threat to “cancel” dissenters for being “racists.” This position is simply not tenable. The end of Jim Crow segregation and the advent of the era of equal rights was transformative for blacks. And now, a half-century down the line, we still have these disparities. This is a shameful blight on our society, I agree. But the plain fact of the matter is that some considerable responsibility for this sorry state of affairs lies with black people ourselves. Dare we Americans acknowledge this?
Leftist critics tout the racial wealth gap. They act as if pointing to the absence of wealth in the African American community is, ipso facto, an indictment of the system — even as black Caribbean and African immigrants are starting businesses, penetrating the professions, presenting themselves at Ivy League institutions in outsize numbers, and so forth. In doing so, they behave like other immigrant groups in our nation’s past. Yes, they are immigrants, not natives. And yes, immigration can be positively selective. I acknowledge that. Still, something is dreadfully wrong when adverse patterns of behavior readily visible in the native-born black American population go without being adequately discussed — to the point that anybody daring to mention them risks being canceled as a racist. This bluff can’t be sustained indefinitely. Despite the outcome of the recent election, I believe we are already beginning to see the collapse of this house of cards. "
"Here, then, is my final unspeakable truth, which I utter now in defiance of “cancel culture.” If we blacks want to walk with dignity, if we want to be truly equal, then we must realize that white people cannot give us equality. We actually have to earn equal status. Please don’t cancel me just yet because I am on the side of black people here. But I feel obliged to report that equality of dignity, equality of standing, equality of honor, equality of security in one’s position in society, equality of being able to command the respect of others — this is not something that can be simply handed over. Rather, it is something that one has to wrest from a cruel and indifferent world with hard work, with our bare hands, inspired by the example of our enslaved and newly freed ancestors. We have to make ourselves equal. No one can do it for us. "