"There are 2 kinds of people in the world: people that divide the world into 2 kinds of people, and those that don't. I am in the later category." -- George Will
Heartening to see this. Perhaps explain why it's so important to critique such ideas, given that they are part of wider ideologies that oppose (and, for those wanting one, provide an alternative to) the scientific method and reason. In cleaner terms: they are nothing more than extreme political ideas and must be understood as such.
Nothing more than extreme political ideas? Those who push this toxic ideology and who understand its intentions would absolutely _love_ for you to keep saying such blissfully ignorant things..
Excellent review, but it had really NOT MUCH to do with the book. Did the guy actually READ the book? I don't know for sure. He sure didn't seem to catch the main current of the book as much as he got hung up on proving that desegregation didn't really work. That's not what the book was about. And I wondered why he seemed to ignore the main current of Kendi's analysis of the problem, unless he didn't really read it. So, in the interests of living up to the title, here's a quick review of the book boiled down to the essentials. And yes, I've read it 4 times. Here goes, in Kendi's own words in the book. And you WILL FIND these points in the book if you care enough to read it, after wading through pages of extraneous verbosity designed to camouflage what this is REALLY ALL ABOUT. It's not until about 1/2 way through the book that he starts laying out what he's REALLY SAYING. 1. Racism is capitalism. .... he references the anticapitalistic, antiracists who were driven underground by the Red Scare of the 1950s, but they are resurfacing now in movements that he NAMES in deliberately veiled terms...... the "Occupy movements", the "Movement for Black Lives", Democratic Socialists..... He also elaborates on his use of the term "anticapitalist" to include NOT JUST communists and socialists but also other people who question or loathe capitalism. 2. Anti-capitalism is antiracism. Antiracist policy cannot eliminate "class racism" without anticapitalist policies. Interesting that term "Class racism". Think about it. 3. The only way to get rid of racism is to look at it as a cancer that must be CUT OUT AND KILLED, in those words. Sounds ominous, ey? 4. Marx once wrote that capitalism is the "conjoined twin" of racism. They are inseparable. This book is important because it discusses the real point of identity politics, in all its permutations. Race, gender, age, sexual preference, ethnicity... whatever. They all share one thing in common. To convert the West to Marxism by the back door. To be clear, Social justice causes are valid... but they're being exploited for a nefarious agenda. Along with many sincere followers of other movements and causes.
Interesting. I've never seen this "conjoined twin" qoute from Marx but I've heard it referenced quite a bit. From what I can tell Marx and Engles views on race would be considered pretty problematic by today's standards.
Though he did spend time critiquing Kendi's views on desegration, he also prefaced that with Kendi's Manichean view of the world - that there is only racism and antiracism. That seems to permeate everything I've read and heard about Kendi, though I have not read his book, yet. Marx also takes this view into his critical theories about class. People like to have things boiled down to simple problems that require simple solutions. I have my own, but I also understand that reality always challenges whatever we think of it.
I really like the idea of the Heterodox Academy, but to reach your ideals you have to be careful not become an echochamber achieving nothing more than giving your listeners the impression that they have been always on the right side. More back and forth please! Challenge ideas on ALL sides! Otherwise you will only attract a likeminded group. Make sure your listeners can see the flaws in their own argumentations that theyself have a blind spot but are obvious for other sides!
I tend to agree with your sentiment here, but the other side of this isn't interested in having discussions about it. They only want us to listen to what they say, and do as we are told..
It's difficult but not impossible. People like Mick West, Daryl Davis and Deeyah Khan manage to do this by focusing on the common humanity first. To use Jonathan Haidt's image: They are talking to the elefant before they talk to the rider. John McWorter said on this channel's conversation on february: > "Try to get into people's heads because very few evil people exist and almost no one is crazy. This stuff is complicated and dealing with the complexity is part of what an intellectual is supposed to be." (1:15:11) I assume that people get into ideologies if they feel as if they are the only ones that can see something important. Look for that important issue, acknowledge it and then do what disagreeing intelletuals do to show (don't tell!) how this can be handeled with empathy, logic and reason. No matter where you stand: Be cautious to avoid the Nutpicking fallacy. When talking with someone keep in mind that moderate positions are the norm. Also treat that person as an individual instead of a representant of a group. You can't fake that. Make sure they can feel that you try understand and value the issues they thought only they could see and that you do acknowledge where they are right and are willing to listen. Only after that they may be willing to listen to you. Take a look a closer look at Mick West, who specialized at conspiracy theories. I would suggest Heterodox Academy to invite him to a conversation so he can talk about the spectrum he has written about in his book.
@@RobertHildebrandt thank you for your comment. I had been looking forward to this forum as I think Haidt has done some amazing work, but I am quickly losing interest due to exactly what you are talking about. It's feeling like a (white male ego centered) echo chamber. Again. We can go lots of places to get this.
He just destroy his career on twitter. He deleted his twit in a hurry but not fast enough, talk about someone who don't want to talk. This comment aged like milk on the counter lol
Yawn. Snyder starts his critique with a false and misleading summary of Kendi's book. Kendi does not simplistically divide the world into 'racist' and 'antiracist' - he divides individual actions and decisions in this way, and fully acknowledges and describes how people and institutions can exhibit both types of behaviour, and how this can change over time.
I'm hard pressed to accept this "intellectually"/rhetorically forced dichotomy. Especially with the evermore plausible and sensible non racist option available.
Let's consider a comparison: either you're anti-homicide, or you're homicidal. No such thing as being a non participant in homicide. Really? Such a statement is so obviously beneath evaluation or rebuttal that even hearing it feels like a waste of time and an insult to the very idea of common sense. How is Kendi's entire argument any different from this?
@@-Nos- that Kendi's worldview of being either racist or antiracist is self evidently wrong and it's mind blowing that anyone has even entertained it. You substitute anything else for racist and the whole construct falls apart instantly
@@lifeinthejazzlane I see. Yes, it's actually quite a fallacious argument.I would also add, I think it's simplicity coupled with an emotional trap is where people get tripped up on.
@@richardshortall5987 the only solution for people possessed of a toxic ideology is to let them suffer the consequences of their beliefs. Has there ever been another way? I do not believe people can be saved from themselves except by witnessing the price their delusions exact from them.
