There’s a difference between “anti-racism” and actually overcoming racism. Overcoming racism requires liberalism, and “anti-racism,” as it is currently being taught, can only increase it. This is most obvious when the tenets of “anti-racism” are set side-by-side with the liberal counterparts we have come to honor, cherish, and uphold. These liberal values are the ones “anti-racism” would supplant and replace with its alternatives. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
FULL TRANSCRIPT:
“Anti-Racism” Vs. Liberalism
Comparing two approaches to fighting racism.
Anti-racism is not the same as being against racism. Despite its lofty goals, “anti-racism,” when examined, in practice leads to increased divisiveness, social unrest, and intolerance.
There are better ways to fight racism than being anti-racist, but the discussion is clouded by changing definitions and overly simplistic reasoning.
Anti-racism employs racist attitudes to determine who is racist (only white people are racist based on the social position they hold on account of their racial origin).
Liberalism employs individualism, tolerant attitudes, and reasoned arguments to minimize prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behavior against individuals or groups on the grounds of race, both in self and others (of any race).
Anti-racism adopts an extreme worldview that racializes every human interaction.
Liberalism sees some interactions as racialized, and others as not racialized.
Anti-racism: Racist until proven innocent (which isn’t actually possible)
Liberalism: Innocent until racism is proven.
Anti-racism denies the possibility of white and “white adjacent” people ever being not racist due to automatic “white complicity” in a “racist system.”
Liberalism contends that each individual can choose not to hold racist views and should be expected to do so.
Anti-racism demands a simple-minded commitment to callout and cancel culture, and all of its destructive implications for freedom of speech, subtlety in reasoning, and the possibility of redemption and forgiveness.
Liberalism recognizes that freedom of speech is the best protection of the minority; avoids oversimplification; and sees that issues of race are best dealt with honestly while still working towards shared goals and a common vision.
Anti-racism encourages discrimination by race.
Liberalism encourages universally upholding the principles of not discriminating by race.
Anti-racism requires commitment to social activism that is lifelong and “ongoing.” “No one is ever done.”
Liberalism requires no commitment to social activism. Just be yourself and treat people as equal individuals.
Anti-racism encourages conflict through a race-based derivative of Marxist “conflict theory.”
Liberalism offers neutral, fair, and objective standards so we can resolve conflicts successfully.
Anti-racism increases the social significance of racial categories. In fact, it makes them central.
Liberalism decreases the social significance of racial categories while acknowledging and correcting remaining problems.
Anti-racism begins with the assumption racism is present and seeks to find it to make it visible. Intentions don’t matter.
Liberalism begins with openness to consider all possible situations and avoids reading bad intentions into situations.
(Special thanks to commenter kasey for this transcription)
15 comments
Great video. I was not bothered by the presentation form at all. Excellent succinct summary.
maybe next time when you do a side-by-side, leave the text up longer so I can compare the differences, also knock off the silly effects like that angled-view and all the zooming in/out. sorry but it made the video unwatchable for me.
This is a good article and I was looking for a positive (“what is”) view of liberalism’s take on racism. I think it would be stronger, however, to steel-man both liberalism and CRT. I think liberalism would still come out on top, but of course, it’s part of the liberal approach to be open to what the data says.
As it is, the descriptions of CRT come off as too caricatured, although I’m familiar with the great work done here and they are accurate. Likewise, would be interesting to see the malignant aspects of liberalism in another article versus the malignant aspects of CRT (the latter being well-covered on this site).
Antiracism’s approach is akin to administering an antibiotic without first determining whether or not there is a bacterial infection. By giving antibiotics when no bacterium is causing the infection, future use of antibiotics is made less effective. By claiming racism exists where it does not, real incidents of racism are considered to be just more “crying wolf.”
Intriguing analogy. This implies that such over-application could encourage the development of treatment-resistant strains of racism.
FULL TRANSCRIPT:
“Anti-Racism” Vs. Liberalism
Comparing two approaches to fighting racism.
Anti-racism is not the same as being against racism. Despite its lofty goals, “anti-racism,” when examined, in practice leads to increased divisiveness, social unrest, and intolerance.
There are better ways to fight racism than being anti-racist, but the discussion is clouded by changing definitions and overly simplistic reasoning.
Anti-racism employs racist attitudes to determine who is racist (only white people are racist based on the social position they hold on account of their racial origin).
Liberalism employs individualism, tolerant attitudes, and reasoned arguments to minimize prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behavior against individuals or groups on the grounds of race, both in self and others (of any race).
Anti-racism adopts an extreme worldview that racializes every human interaction.
Liberalism sees some interactions as racialized, and others as not racialized.
Anti-racism: Racist until proven innocent (which isn’t actually possible)
Liberalism: Innocent until racism is proven.
Anti-racism denies the possibility of white and “white adjacent” people ever being not racist due to automatic “white complicity” in a “racist system.”
Liberalism contends that each individual can choose not to hold racist views and should be expected to do so.
Anti-racism demands a simple-minded commitment to callout and cancel culture, and all of its destructive implications for freedom of speech, subtlety in reasoning, and the possibility of redemption and forgiveness.
Liberalism recognizes that freedom of speech is the best protection of the minority; avoids oversimplification; and sees that issues of race are best dealt with honestly while still working towards shared goals and a common vision.
Anti-racism encourages discrimination by race.
Liberalism encourages universally upholding the principles of not discriminating by race.
Anti-racism requires commitment to social activism that is lifelong and “ongoing.” “No one is ever done.”
Liberalism requires no commitment to social activism. Just be yourself and treat people as equal individuals.
Anti-racism encourages conflict through a race-based derivative of Marxist “conflict theory.”
Liberalism offers neutral, fair, and objective standards so we can resolve conflicts successfully.
Anti-racism increases the social significance of racial categories. In fact, it makes them central.
Liberalism decreases the social significance of racial categories while acknowledging and correcting remaining problems.
Anti-racism begins with the assumption racism is present and seeks to find it to make it visible. Intentions don’t matter.
Liberalism begins with openness to consider all possible situations and avoids reading bad intentions into situations.
Thank you for this. The video’s styling was incredibly distracting from the important ideas it presented. It was visually very challenging to watch all the way through with the constant “artful” focusing-defocusing effect.
I agree. I almost stopped watching for that reason alone.
I am very grateful for the one commenter above who provided a transcript.
Very helpful to have these central concepts compared side by side, and it may be nice for them to be additionally presented in list form or infographic.
Extremely well done. It would be VERY helpful if there existed a text-based rendition of that video.
I appreciated the ideas here, and for many of the items, liberalism does seem superior (as you intended).But what abut this one: “No commitment,just be yourself and treat others as individuals.” That is a pretty weak approach to ending systematic injustice (poverty among black Americans, racist attitudes by police). Can there be a system that takes the best from the two approaches? Except that wouldn’t make anyone’s career.
“Systemic injustice” needs to be defined and validated, not presumed true, before those conditions you mention – “poverty among black Americans, racist attitudes by police” – can be remedied. The Jim Crow laws were “systemic” because they were legal barriers designed to deny Blacks equal access to public facilities. These “systemic” laws have been banned for just over half a century. If incidents of racism occur, it is by the individuals who exercise power within these bureaucracies. Because we cannot read minds, the only way to prove racist intent would be from someone’s social media posting or other evidence.
It may be that many police, teachers and social workers are closet racists, but I doubt it (I’ve met real racists and I’ve also been teaching for 20 years and I have yet to meet a racist teacher). Perhaps the issue is callousness and indifference against poor people rather than race? Perhaps the systems don’t produce their intended results – or worse, they do: generational dependency and endemic poverty just so happens to create middle class jobs and votes for politicians who play the role of saviors for the poor (call me a cynic, but this cannot be overlooked).
A reasonable argument goes as follows: the welfare system is the main culprit to generational poverty and deteriorating social conditions because welfare replaces the father’s income. From that, all manner of issues arise.
Children born into fatherless homes have far more problems in school – poor attendance and grades and incidents of anti-social behavior. This continues into adulthood and can be seen in the prison population. This holds true regardless of race. Indeed, poor whites of Appalachia and the urban areas in the United Kingdom validate this assertion.
I contend that if you take the best police officers and teachers and place them in violent neighborhoods with concentrations of dysfunctional families, in time they will by necessity harden and exhibit signs of indifference and perhaps Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The education and criminal justice systems cannot be reformed without this underlying problem being addressed. It is not systemic racism, but systemic stupidity and hubris. When you reverse the incentives or remove the conditions that allow people to become self-disciplined and independent, you produce a microcosm of socialism – an experiment in social engineering that has a 100% failure rate.
Absolutely spot on. A well-written response that hit right at the core of the problem.
It’s important to understand that the concept of “systemic racism”, as understood by critical race theory, is itself racist in nature as it views “the system” as racist, because it originated under the control of “white people”, therefore, they posit, the system is inherently racist, because every “white person” is inherently racist.
The truth of the matter is that most “white people” are not racist, therefore “the system” is not racist.
And just to take this a step further, under the rules of CRT, if every position in “the system” were to be handed over to “black people”, CRT would still consider “the system” to be systemically racist. CRT views “black people” who participate in the system has having “internalized” the racism of the “white people” who built the system.
So when you step back from the concept of “systemic racism”, you see that it’s not really about empowering “black people” per se, but rather it’s an indictment of the entire system i.e. Liberal Democracy.
Demonstrating this side by side: a good idea.
Please.