How To Be An Anti-Racist: Book Discussion

This is just the scattered musings that I wrote down as I listened to the audiobook. The general idea is that this is a variation of Critical Race Theory made digestible for a wider audience. Kendi tries to dismiss this, but anyone who has read the basics of CRT can see the basic ideas reflected; at best, he criticizes some of the more obnoxious variations of CRT.

Racism is not reducible to individual biases, but is systemic/institutional. This assumes that the ultimate problem is racial disparities. Colorblind policies are racist in the context of the wider system, as they do not work against the system, instead allowing the disparities to persist. CRT is especially known for suggesting that our society is built to be racist, rather than racism simply being a bug within a non-racist system. Kendi suggests something similar at the end, concluding that our modern (2020ish) society is basically stage-four cancer. Cap all of that off with a starry-eyed ending about how things can get better despite the metaphor, and that is this book.

This is the anti-Thomas Sowell book. If you are familiar with Sowell, then this is the counter view that you should look into.

Race is a Social Construct

There is this weird contradiction regarding the social construction of race and race essentialism. On one hand, the races are different merely because of historical contingencies. On the other, the races seem to have some essence that cannot or should not change. Kendi rails against assimilationist notions suggesting that black people should become more like whites. Though, if race is simply socially constructed, then what are you even preserving at that point, and why is it bad to oppose it? It's not like he believes in a natural black identity.

He also assumes that there is a white way of doing things, and a black way, generally. As Sowell argues, many cultural patterns that American Black people have today are something they inherited from southern whites, so they are historically contingent, but also not necessarily black. And white people have also reflected these patterns of behavior. Assimilation does not mean adopting superior white behaviors, nor does it legitimize white superiority.

The apotheosis of stupidity comes at the end of the book, where Kendi concludes that racism has only existed for 600 years or so, and is therefore something that can be dealt with. This is only because of his hyper-specific understanding of racism, where whites, blacks, asians, and middle-eastern people are the races. Quite literally, racism only *began* in the sense that these groups of people only started interacting with one another. He ignores that racism is an outgrowth of a more general tendency toward tribalism, which goes back uncountable years, before our modern species even evolved into being.

This is bolstered by his assumption that institutions create racist attitudes, rather than the reverse. Institutions come from self-interest, then. But this is problematic, as racism decreases when it is in the interests of those in power, as well. Self-interest is not sufficient to explain any behavior, but is more-or-less necessary to explain it. Institutions reflect tribalism applied to race, which can then reinforce the differences brought about by the tribalism. 

Kendi simply wants to be rid of racist institutions. But he hardly fixes the problem, as he incorrectly assumes that tribal attitudes applied to race will just go away without them. This is, in a word, retarded.

Is Kendi a Conservative?

Not an American one, as we understand them to be. But a conservative is ostensibly one that wants to preserve certain traditions for their group. This is what Kendi wants for American Blacks. He casts aside all notions of change on the grounds that they are assimilation and take the form of whiteness being pushed on blacks, because these changes are apparently racially coded. But they don’t have to be conceptualized as such.

Taking Personal Responsibility is Taking Blame?

Kendi also despises bootstrapping ideology, calling it racist, as it blames black people for their standing. This is nonsensical. A child born into poverty is not to blame for where they are, but a simple pragmatic approach to life would be to take control of the variables that they have on hand—and to do what they can to succeed. This pragmatic approach does not need to point the finger at anyone for it to work.

I think this ties into much more basic view about how the world works. Some people see the world as indifferent to humans, and simply adopts a more pragmatic approach to things (like Thomas Sowell). While others see the world as having a moral order and think that bad things can only ever be explained by bad influences; you have to point the finger at something. Further, solutions inherently involve addressing the bad thing (the root cause), rather than simply doing what works.

Discrimination and Disparities

At one point, Kendi basically doubles down on the idea that disparities are due to discrimination. This is one of his core assumptions that he uses to justify the equity principle. There is a connection between unequal treatment and unequal outcome, because people are all equal on the inside. Kendi never justifies this and never unpacks the basic assumptions.

At the forefront is this notion of equality. As specified above, Kendi takes for granted that current cultural patterns are inherent to the specified races, even as he claims that race is a social construct. Apparently, the gang culture in the wider African American culture is just how they are. And he thinks that this kind of culture can produce the exact outcomes as other cultures. Naturally, it follows that with equal treatment, academic outcomes and other factors would all be the same. Thomas Sowell is the usual rebuttal. As he shows repeatedly, the default state is disparate outcomes. Cultures are different. Asian Americans are not ahead in terms of outcomes simply because they are treated favorably. They have different patterns of behavior.

He tries to cite a bunch of statistics showing that black people are discriminated against, but it is just the usual out of context statistics that you expect from activists. Statistics have to be interpreted in order to understand why they may be the way they are, and whole debates have raged over this for decades, but for Kendi, they can just be rattled off. For example, Kendi mentions disparities in drug enforcement, but jumps into none of the discussion about the correct interpretations of these statistics. For example, the whole notion that crack laws versus cocaine laws are racist in terms of enforcement is disputed and should be addressed directly, at the very least. You can question the drug war as a whole, but it remains the case that there was far more violence associated with crack than cocaine, so it drew more focus.

The usual response to this is to claim that disparities are racist by definition. In other words, disparate impact theory. This is usually the fallback position when pressed, and Kendi seems to be favorable to the idea, while also operating on the specified assumption here, that disparities are not only racist by definition but are also necessarily caused by unequal treatment.

ID Laws and the SAT

As with much left wing political theories, much of the problems are identified with institutions and policies. There is an obvious kernel of truth here, but Kendi seems fixed on this as an alternative to problems with black people themselves. Let’s first address the baseless assumption that black people’s destructive behaviors are inherent to being black, rather than something inherent to the human condition. Honor cultures, for example, exist in all races, and all races can escape those patterns. It is also important to note that policies can address and/or exacerbate the tendencies of people.

Further, there are more specific questions of which policies are actually bad. Bafflingly, Kendi compares voter ID laws with literacy tests, because they have a disparate impact on black people. So, he wants them removed. In other words, instead of keeping the ID laws and adopting policies that increase black ownership of state IDs, he wants to throw out the ID standard altogether. Comparing ID requirements to literacy test is laughable, given the needlessness of literacy tests and the obvious need for ID confirmation. I’ve never understood this reasoning. It quite literally validates the conservative caricature of Wokists as people who want to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator. “Communists just want everyone equally poor!”

So it goes with the SAT. Apparently helping black people get better education to increase their scores according to a universal standard is out of the question. Instead, abolish the tests and lose the standard altogether. Lol.

He addresses the SAT later in the book, and the arguments are borne out of some truths that at least explain why people adopt these insane positions. He points out the truth that there is a difference between performing well on tests and actually having high intelligence/ability. Fair point. Then again, there is a matter of degree to these things. Tests can be more or less accurate. And more to the point, no test or any measure is perfect. It’s easy to draw out the absolutist implications to absurdity. Because what is a good measure? Education itself? Kendi himself talks about how his grades were very low. So, there is a difference between GPA and actual intelligence/ability. Should we just get rid of schools? Plainly not. How do we measure a doctor’s ability to prepare them for their job? There is some imperfect measure that we’re going to have to fall back on.

The utility of the SAT is that it is a universal measure. Instead of assuming that different schools across the nation have the same standards, you create one universal standard and ensure all people are measured accordingly. The fact that disparities exist does not mean the test itself is bad, but that education is a problem in some areas. Kendi talks about that, at least, but how the hell does his criticisms about the SAT not apply to education itself, when that involves testing and homework, which are not the exact same thing as actual intelligence/ability in the real world?

Intersectionality

What about the intersection of upper class and being black? Is this intersection that Kendi operates on one of the most privileged group of people in the history of mankind? I think it might be. Remember, those at a given intersection have novel and/or better experiences than either individual group.

Biology

Kendi builds his morality around a particular view of biology, categorically casting out particular stances as evil. In many cases, this is more or less warranted when he talks about specifics. History is full of bad arguments and people leaping to conclusions. But Kendi takes it further, and essentially takes up the position on the opposite side: a very bad argument for an environmental account.

Namely, he defines racist positions so broadly that he technically includes genetic explanations for prevalence of skin color or even sickle cell. Obviously, this is not on purpose, but Kendi is notoriously bad at definitions. (But I’ll give him credit for some of his updates in this book).

I won’t get into the more controversial views talked about here. The debates are every bit the mess you can expect. One example is less controversial. The idea that black people naturally have higher kinesthetic abilities. This seems plausible. Reality doesn’t care about our morals. Yet Kendi seems to think we can just call this racist and make the suggestion go away. This is classic morality over reality. Utopian thinking. Unfortunately for the moralists, morality is something we just make up, for the sake of self-interest and personal values. A more liberal approach that focuses on equal treatment regardless of differences is obviously warranted here, if you think racial equality is desirable.

Finally, Kendi criticizes folk understandings of race, but seems to conflate this with the question of differences. They are not the same question.

Violence in America

Kendi’s ability to talk about violence in the black community is completely poisoned by his racial view. Throughout the nineties, there were horrific levels of violence in the black community, and the attempt to address it, whether it worked or not, was pushed by black law makers because it affected their own communities. Black people are affected by black crime. But Kendi just dismisses these attempts to address the problem by dismissing these black people as having dualing consciousness. He even pivots to talk about racists in the past to makes excuses for dismissing the crime in the black community, and it was part of a long list of other things that also constitute a pivot.

He continually conflates an acknowledgement of black crime with an assertion that the differences are natural, which allows him to poison the well and avoid addressing the issue. And strangely enough, he splices in vignettes of black violence throughout the discussion, which I guess is supposed to show that there are problems, but also less violent black people. Which no one denies. I honestly don’t understand what his overall position is. He pays lip service to these issues, but engages with the opposing side in an incredibly dishonest manner.

OJ Simpson

Kendi has this convenient kind of justice, where he justifies some injustices with other injustices. Apparently, Simpson’s wife deserves no justice because of Rodney King and other historical events. My own fantasy series will touch upon this, because the rationalization is so rampant these days. How about we stop justifying recent injustice with past injustice? For an individualist, this is stunningly anti-individualist of Kendi.

Individualism and Trends

Kendi argues for a kind of individualism, despite his obsession with averages and trying to equalize them. It ultimately goes back to his assumption that averages would be equalized in a world without unequal treatment; and by extension, it goes back to his assumption that disparities ultimately come from unequal treatment.

Worse, though, is his assumption that individualism means not recognizing trends. Apparently, you can’t recognize problems in the black community, a trend, because that doesn’t focus on the individuals responsible. This is confused. Recognizing that men tend to be more violent than women does not mean that all men are responsible, or that individual men should be held accountable for the actions of a few. Likewise, with black people. Individualism, first and foremost, is recognizing that individuals have agency and responsibility, not demographics. But this does not mean we have to ignore trends.

This last bit is particularly baffling given how trends are literally baked into his ideology. What is the purpose of comparing averages, if not to recognize a trend? What is a disparity if not a recognized average difference?

Prison Abolitionism

The prison abolitionism is insane. In the aftermath of the riots of 2020 and the defund efforts in the wake, it is only more baffling. Root cause theories of crime have never worked, and imprisonment, even mass incarceration, have been shown to work continually. James Q. Wilson has done great work on this. Pragmatic solutions are what matter, not utopian notions of attacking the root causes. Like some have pointed out, going after the root causes of crime in our time is like going after the root cause of earthquakes: plate tectonics. It is not practical, nor is it even desirable.

Ebonics is Broken English

I agree with the idea that Ebonics is unfairly dismissed as broken. It is just another dialect that has evolved. That said, it is inherited from white rednecks; it is not a unique black American thing. Further, this doesn’t mean it is as good as other dialects along certain metrics, nor does it mean it is intrinsic to any given group. The usual conservatism comes through here, where cultural identity is considered sacrosanct.

Kendi and Marxism

Kendi has a connection to Marxism by proxy, but he denies the connection. W.E.B. Dubois read Marx, by Kendi’s own admission. Kendi then admits to reading Dubois. But he doesn’t get the connection. This is very strange. How many Marxists living today have read Marx directly? And how much of their conviction comes from his writing, as opposed to secondary sources? Was it those original writings that convinced them in the first place? As someone who is reading Marx right now, I can say that I can only really parse his writings with the secondary source understandings already in mind. He is not easy to understand.

Capitalism and Racism

Kendi’s statements on racism and capitalism are incredibly strange. They are so broad and vague, yet inflammatory and filled with caveats, and I am tempted to say that he is outright contradicting himself. On one hand, he is claiming that racism and capitalism are joined at the hip, and they have to be addressed together; on the other hand, he endorses milder positions on capitalism like that of Elizabeth Warren, and I really don’t understand what the alternative position he is arguing for is. It is rather baffling. He might just be a guy with grand hate toward capitalism, but simply wants an expanded welfare state, or something. But I’m not really sure.

He also argues from a correlation between the rise of racism and the rise of capitalism that one causes the other. This is nonsense, and the correlation can be criticized in its own right. If race is a social construct, then racism between different ethnicities has been with us since the dawn of time. If you limit racism to white on black racism, then there might be a correlation, but there are different reasons why this might be. Capitalism leading to prosperity allowed the West to dominate the globe, which lead to first contact with blacks from sub-Saharan Africa. Capitalism did not create racism, but merely the means to interact with other races.

Welfare and Inheritance

During a section on welfare, he rejoins by asking about inheritance and why people aren’t asking about that. The implication is that people are unfairly maligning poor people. This makes me suspect that he doesn’t really grasp the welfare trap argument. Poor people obviously have it harder than rich or middle class people. Poor people cannot afford to be lazy, while the rest can. I genuinely don’t understand what his point is. He seems to think that the welfare trap argument is an insult or something, and is trying to insult rich people in turn. This is supported by his constant mentions of arguments saying that poor people are lazy. To the extent that people actually say this, they are wrong; as I said, poor people can’t afford to be lazy. But he never engages with the more plausible arguments.

Black People Have An Unfair Obligation

Black people have to answer for other black people’s bad behavior. Whites do not. This is true, though this might be an unfair predicament that black people find themselves in. Is there are way to change this? By focusing less on race, but Kendi thinks equity must be solved first, which is impossible and undesirable. So, he is the reason this is a problem in the first place.

The Last Chapter

Kendi suggests that racism is metastasizing cancer in the modern day. Why? Compared to what? Slavery? Jim Crow? Are these past societies, alongside ours, all stage-four cancer? Shouldn’t these metaphors capture these differences?

It's also rather telling when Kendi gets to the point where he mentions setting up an Anti-Racist research center to address the issues; and all the while the project was a catastrophe and a scam that blew up in his face. It's a shame.

Conclusion

Kendi’s views are largely CRT views, though he does deviate in places. He claims to be an individualist, and acknowledges that blacks can be racist—but he also forwards the central CRT suggestion that racism is institutional and that our society is built to be racist (or that it is stage-four cancer, at least). Any policy that produces disparate outcomes is racist, and color-blind policies are racist within the wider context, as they don’t actively close the gaps of these disparities. He, like Robin DiAngelo, is a form of CRT that is simplified for a wider audience.

I only bothered to mention the aspects of the book that I found objectionable. You should check the book out for yourself. Chances are, you might like the book, overall. Make sure that you get the most updated version, as the audiobook version that I listened to makes updates in response to the rollout of the first edition hardback.