How to Be an Antiracist

1) "What's the problem with being 'not racist'? It is a claim that signifies neutrality: 'I am not a racist, but neither am I aggressively against racism.' But there is no neutrality in the racism struggle. The opposite of 'racist' isn't 'not racist.' It is 'antiracist.' What's the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an antiracist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is no inbetween safe space of 'not racist.' The claim of 'not racist' neutrality is a mask for racism. This may seem harsh, but it's important at the outset that we apply one of the core principles of antiracism, which is to return the word 'racist' itself back to its proper usage. 'Racist' is not—as Richard Spencer argues—a pejorative. It is not the worst word in the English language; it is not the equivalent of a slur. It is descriptive, and the only way to undo racism is to consistently identify and describe it and then dismantle it. The attempt to turn this usefully descriptive term into an almost unusable slur is, of course, designed to do the opposite: to freeze us into inaction."

2) "We are surrounded by racial inequity, as visible as the law, as hidden as our private thoughts. The question for each of us is: What side of history will we stand on? A racist is someone who is supporting a racist policy by their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea. An antiracist is someone who is supporting an antiracist policy by their actions or expressing an antiracist idea. 'Racist' and 'antiracist' are like peelable name tags that are placed and replaced based on what someone is doing or not doing, supporting or expressing in each moment. These are not permanent tattoos. No one becomes a racist or antiracist. We can only strive to be one or the other. We can unknowingly strive to be a racist. We can knowingly strive to be an antiracist. Like fighting an addiction, being an antiracist requires persistent self-awareness, constant self-criticism, and regular self-examination."

3) "Black individuals have, of course, suffered trauma from slavery and ongoing oppression. Some individuals throughout history have exhibited negative behaviors related to this trauma. DeGruy is a hero for ushering the constructs of trauma, damage, and healing into our understanding of Black life. But there is a thin line between an antiracist saying individual Blacks have suffered trauma and a racist saying Blacks are a traumatized people. There is similarly a thin line between an antiracist saying slavery was debilitating and a racist saying Blacks are a debilitated people. The latter constructions erase whole swaths of history: for instance, the story of even the first generation of emancipated Black people, who moved straight from plantations into the Union army, into politics, labor organizing, Union leagues, artistry, entrepreneurship, club building, church building, school building, community building—buildings more commonly razed by the fiery hand of racist terrorism than by any self-destructive hands of behavioral deficiencies derived from the trauma of slavery."

4) "We called our African American studies space a Black space—it was, after all, governed primarily by Black bodies, Black thoughts, Black cultures, and Black histories. Of course, the spaces at Temple University governed primarily by White bodies, White thoughts, White cultures, and White histories were not labeled White. They hid the Whiteness of their spaces behind the veil of color blindness."

5) "The original problem of racism has not been solved by suasion. Knowledge is only power if knowledge is put to the struggle for power. Changing minds is not a movement. Critiquing racism is not activism. Changing minds is not activism. An activist produces power and policy change, not mental change. If a person has no record of power or policy change, then that person is not an activist."

Update: OK, I finished it. The last ten pages, his analogy and vision, those were good. The rest, I stand by what I wrote earlier (below) with one addition: I think I have a better sense for what bothers me. He comes off as a hothead and a bully. I'm not going to rate this book, because I don't want to skew ratings and besides, what the heck do I know anyway? People I trust rave about it. So make up your own mind - take my copy, please.

------------

So much for my cred as an ally: I can't read this. I tried once, months ago, and abandoned it silently. This week I picked it up again, gritted my teeth, and set a goal of 100 pages. I made it -- to 103! -- then put it down to start on [b:The Hate U Give|32075671|The Hate U Give (The Hate U Give, #1)|Angie Thomas|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1476284759l/32075671.SY75.jpg|49638190] instead.

Not all books reach everyone; each of us is attuned to different voices. Kendi's debate-team background influences his writing: I found it pedantic and tiresome. "The dictionary defines X as Y"; "So-and-so once wrote". I grew up with someone whose only way of engaging was to lecture - I don't need more speeches in my life.

But screw my opinion. This is an important book, many people love it, so give it a try. My hope in writing this is to remind you that, should it not speak to you, it's OK to try other sources.

I feel about this book a little like I did about The New Jim Crow when it came out. If you have read a lot about racial justice, there won’t be a lot of new ideas. But the ideas are put together in a very clear, concise way. I appreciate any time someone is willing to share their experiences, misunderstandings, and growth with the world and this book does a great job of weaving the lessons learned in a life with history and theory. Much of the book addresses the internalized racism of black people and other people of color. It is for someone else to determine how good a job it does at that. The book feels very male-centric, especially the first half. That isn’t surprising considering it is the memoir of a dude, but I found it difficult to read more than half of a book about racial justice before women started coming into the picture at all. (I think there was one mention of Audre Lorde early on.) This omission turns out to be part of the authors learning process and is addressed later, but I suspect I won’t be the only woman frustrated by it. The main issue that I have with the book is how it talks about policy. I understand that he wants to steer us away from ideas of racism being about personal animosity and towards the policies and power that create inequality and oppression. In that I am in complete agreement. However, when someone says policy, it seems to indicate a focus only on advocating for legal/political changes within the scope of our current system. In other words, everything comes down to either begging at the doors of the powerful or becoming one of those powerful and the basic outlines of our lives don’t change much. There is no meat to the bit he mentions about anticapitalism because there is no hint at what we should do instead. There are a few hints that he believes focus on policy includes community organizing, but he certainly doesn’t come out and say that. And there is absolutely nothing to indicate that he has an understanding of organizing around creating alternatives. He speaks a lot about dueling consciousness in the book and I think one of the dueling consciousnesses that isn’t dealt with is the one between the man who underwent a transformation that allowed him to see the world differently despite the current policies and the one who thinks we need to change policies before people will change their minds. I would love to see him leave the beltway for a while, go spend some time with Cooperation Jackson or with folks working on transformative art projects. I don’t agree that policy is the start of change. Imagination is. And I don’t entirely agree that racist ideas follow racist policy. There is plenty of work out there showing how policy was actually designed in reaction to liberation movements. The people who develop policy don’t lead everything. They are just as often reacting to movements on the ground – whether it is Nixon’s drug war reacting to Black Power or the burning of witches in reaction to women’s rebellions in medieval Europe. There are some hints of liberalism and vanguardism in the way he talks about policy that that do not sit well with me. All that said, it is definitely worth a read. It is thoughtful and I found it forced me to think about some of my beliefs with more clarity and specificity. I look forward to seeing how his thinking evolves.

The ideas in this book are relevant and timely. It opened my perspective about the way to think about racism, the way it is part of our every day lives and how do we act to counter it.
It is a very worthwhile read, as it will undoubtedly challenge what you think about race, class and gender and the influence they have in our reality.
Some of the points that stuck with me pretty strongly were about the emphasis on policy, and how changing policy is much more important than changing individuals. Also a highlight the distinction between segregationists (racists), assimilationists (not-racists) and anti-racists. It makes it very clear how being "not-racist" is often not possible and even not real, we should all strive to be anti-racist. And how this is always a fluctuating and changing state, sometimes we are racist, sometimes we are anti-racist, and we are responsible for constantly challenging our own internalised racism.
Very recommended if you are interested in this subject.