In part 1, the big idea of the modern social justice movement (“wokeness”) was established. In part 2, what it means to be antiracist was considered. In parts 3-4 we will now begin to respond to the main messaging of the modern social justice movement. Let’s now consider the reasoning of these ideas. Are these ideas reasonable and/or substantiated?
As already made clear, influential books like Color of Compromise, White Fragility, and How To Be An Antiracist, as well as much of the ideas of this movement in general, provide very little substantiation to support the sweeping claims made. This worldview is largely substantiated by (1) assumptions, (2) reinterpretation, and (3) faulty logic and functions with (4) contradictions.
First, this worldview merely assumes racism in order to substantiate the idea that it is everywhere. As quoted, DiAngelo is explicit at the beginning of her work that she will not “attempt to prove that racism exists”. This is nothing short of shocking considering her book rests entirely on that premise. To begin the work that way is like holding up a cup to show how great of a cup it is but refusing to pour water in it to prove it can actually hold water. Furthermore, this worldview actual condemns the very request to pour water into the cup.
In similar fashion, Jemar Tisby will not provide a “…‘smoking gun’—explicit evidence that connects the American church with overt cooperation with racism.” Maybe this is why racism is now considered “invisible”. If you are looking for the kind of overt substantiation demanded for such a revolutionary worldview, you will not find it in these works. Speaking to the scholarship behind these ideas, James Lindsay and Helen Plukrose write, “As they are, the ideas are demonstrably bad and ethically incoherent and cannot withstand rigorous scrutiny without imploding and disappearing in a puff of contradictions”.[1]
Most of the time, the most concrete way in which present racism is identified is by identifying visible examples of racism in history. History is often used to prove something about the present. The logic is typically that if racism was so clearly present in the past (and it was), then that proves it is just as present here and now. This is the assumption and theory posited. The way these leading voices fundamentally substantiate their worldview is through the idea that historic racism has “produced an indelible imprint upon how people discuss and view issues today.”[2] DiAngelo writes, we bring our “group’s history with us…history matters.”[3] For instance, the racism of the 1800s has passed through generations and is alive today, triggered by all sorts of actions and discourses.
This is why progress is not actually progress because racism never goes away, as Tisby writes. The pattern that is commonplace in substantiating this worldview is to gloss over the progress that has occurred in American culture and within the church. Readers are left to assume that the obvious racism detailed in America’s history is still present, even if its “invisible”. However, precisely how past racism has stamped itself on the present to be active and alive in current rules, laws, policies, procedures, and the like is not clear.
It appears the only way progress or peace will be declared in this worldview is once a utopian perfection is reached and/or a revolution occurs. If things are not perfect today then there is nothing to praise and if there is nothing to praise then everything is as bad as ever and we need a revolution. “This is what makes Theory seductive—or populism, or Marxism, or any other form of Utopianism that looks good on paper and is ruinous in practice.”[4]
But the reality is that American culture has progressed. It seems the reason racism is considered “invisible” is simply because more often than not proponents of this worldview cannot identify modern, concrete examples of what they are talking about. America has progressed to eradicate racist laws and policies and this has had drastic effects on equality and daily life. To say this progress is just racism becoming more deceptive is nothing less than a baseless assumption. Ironically, for a movement set on eradicating racism in society it fails to acknowledge the ways American society has moved significantly towards that end. Ironically, for a movement set on eradicating racialization and racism, it seems to constantly and purposefully draw dividing lines between man-made racial categories and constantly and purposefully declare that things are just as bad as ever.
Second, this worldview reinterprets nearly everything as racist, including events and discourses that have no apparent connection to racism, in order to substantiate the idea that it is everywhere. All of life is reinterpreted in the most cynical way possible in this worldview. There are countless examples of how this happens but a few will suffice.
A stunning example of how everything gets reinterpreted to support this worldview is how Robin DiAngelo reinterprets how the story of Jackie Robinson is taught, saying Americans learned that Jackie was the first black person skilled enough to play major league baseball. In other words, we were taught that his story had nothing to do with race or racism, according to DiAngelo. According to DiAngelo, we were not taught that Jackie Robinson was the first black person finally allowed to play major league baseball. It is perplexing to consider this reinterpretation of Jackie Robinson’s story and the idea that this is how it is commonly taught. Have you ever heard Jackie Robinson’s story being taught that way? Racism is central to his story and always has been. But again, this worldview reinterprets everything about the past and present, creating a seemingly new world.
Another example of reinterpretation can be seen in multiple sermons by a leading voice in evangelicalism. In A House Divided Cannot Stand and Racial Harmony Pastor Matt Chandler explains how growing up his education largely ignored black history and even purposefully sought to teach the superiority of whites. This is core to his argument in his sermons concerning the presence of modern racism and seems to now be a common argument. An example given is that Pastor Matt Chandler says he was not taught that Africans have accomplished amazing feats in architecture and engineering and implies most white people are ignorant of that fact. While you may immediately think, “But we are aware of some of those things. What about the pyramids?”, Pastor Matt Chandler says that we are quickly taught that northern Africa, where the pyramids are located, is not the same as Africa.
Reasonable questions, however, quickly arise. Was this actually, explicitly taught like this or is this a reinterpretation? Did Pastor Chandler’s high school teachers really want him to know north Africa is different than the rest of Africa? Is the failure to learn about most great feats of engineering and architecture on every continent really a fruit of racism? For instance, is the failure for American children to learn about historical architecture and engineering in China a sign of racism against the Chinese? Could it simply be that American kids learn mostly about America, not nearly as much about Africa, Asia, or India, because we live in America? And could it be that children learn mostly about people with white skin because most people in America have white skin?
Look at it this way: would we consider it racist if Chinese kids didn’t learn much about American engineering growing up? Or would we just reasonably assume it’s because they live in China? Could it all just be for lack of time or maybe a weakness in education having nothing to do with race and racism?
In other words, it seems examples like these of racism are not reasonable ways to interpret reality. This is only one example in which this worldview reinterprets everything through a lens of race and racism. There is only one possible reason that American children do not learn enough, whatever “enough” is, about Africa (for example): racism.
Pastor Chandler’s point is that white people are surprised to learn that non-white people are intelligent and creative because we were never taught this. However, this is a massive assumption he makes about everyone’s else’s experience. Were you taught in school in such a way to even imply that non-white people aren’t intelligent or creative? Were you taught that northern Africa isn’t the same as Africa? Furthermore, while learning those things about non-white people seems to have come as a surprise to Pastor Chandler, this does not mean that others are surprised by this. Pastor Matt Chandler’s surprise that non-white people have done amazing things does not mean that most people are surprised by that idea. These are reinterpretations made into assumptions about others that turn into accusations.
A final example of how everything is reinterpreted is to consider how American progress is processed. How is progress reinterpreted? It is either largely ignored or reinterpreted as racism itself. For instance, was the election of President Barack Obama, a black man, an example of progress forward? Not for this worldview. It cannot be. More than likely, electing a black president was merely a mask to pretend like society isn’t racist in order to continue upholding racism.
Third, this worldview uses faulty logic in order to substantiate the idea that it is everywhere. What is so strategic about this worldview is that it only needs someone to disagree with it to prove itself true. As Kendi argues, “The claim of ‘not racist’ neutrality is a mask for racism”. This worldview views the slightest disagreement as proof of the truth of the worldview. If you disagree that you are a racist, you prove that the person speaking with you is absolutely right about what they are saying. Instead, you should agree and not demand to understand the accusation that you are a racist.[5]
This logic functions similar to the question, “When did you stop beating your spouse?” The very question is already loaded with an accusation of guilt. This worldview is true because someone else’s subjective experience said it is. This worldview is proven when anyone disagrees with it. This worldview lives in the world of, “You have your truth and I have my truth.” However, the only truth that is valid is the truth that agrees with the tenets of this worldview. Any disagreement is the falsehood of an oppressor who should be isolated, boycotted, and resisted.
This is precisely why it is extremely difficult to converse about race and racism. If you do not buy into this worldview you prove yourself to be the problem and therefore what you have to say is of little to no value. If you are not paying attention, this is why the nation, families, churches, and marriages are being torn apart along the lines of this worldview. This worldview is not producing peaceful, reasonable disagreement. It demands its adherents draw dividing lines in the sand.
Lastly, wokeness promotes the very ideas it condemns in a haze of contradictions. For instance: On the one hand, race is a social construct that has principally been used to oppress. On the other hand, we must actively uphold racial categories. On the one hand, discrimination is used to oppress. On the other hand, we must actively discriminate. On the one hand, we must not treat people differently based on skin color. On the other hand, we must assume a person’s culture and history based on skin color. On the one hand, needing an ID to drive is not racist. On the other hand, needing an ID to vote is racist. Again, “As they are, the ideas are demonstrably bad and ethically incoherent and cannot withstand rigorous scrutiny without imploding and disappearing in a puff of contradictions”.
In the end, this worldview rarely wants to reason coherently. The past necessarily implies something about the present. Events and discourses are constantly reinterpreted. And reasoning on the subject immediately moves to label people as either good or bad. In many ways this worldview is gnostic. There is secret knowledge out there held by those who have woke(en) up to see omnipresent invisible realities and know the secrets of your subconscious. The reason you don’t understand is because you need to wake up. The problem is not with the evidence and substantiation. The problem is with you. This is why you are probably still very confused on what people are talking about when they talk about race and racism in America. The result is that you are led to be quiet in your confusion, keep learning, and fall in line in the meantime.
Perhaps this is why discourse about these things is more and more frowned upon. As DiAngelo writes, you must simply agree and say “Thank you” when someone considers you a racist. If you fail, at best you are just confused and do not adequately understand these things. You need to go through a period of learning and awakening on your own. This is why it is commonplace for those who subscribe to this system of belief to express their lack of interest in conversing with others who disagree.
The great problem with the lack of substantiation for these ideas is the reality of misdiagnosing the problem and therefore offering a bad solution. For example, if there are differences in income levels between “races” and we are only given one reason, white supremacy, this will severely limit solutions brought to the table. But if we are wrong about white supremacy being the problem we will likely be significantly wrong about the solution, creating brand new problems and leaving old ones intact. We must demand far more substantiation for such radical claims about problems in American society to ensure we get the solution right.
This worldview is also dangerous in its hypocrisy. For instance, in order to correct the tragic wreckage of past discrimination that led to things like slavery, murder, and rape, we are called to embrace the same idea and activity of discrimination. We all agree, the world in which we live is absolutely littered with sin, evil, injustice, and discrimination. This worldview then provides a solution that shares the ideology of the problem it seeks to solve. It promises a kind of utopia that is established by the same kind of ideas that have caused previous ruin. Why do we think that promoting another form of discrimination will somehow be immune to the ruin that past discrimination caused? Again, “This is what makes Theory seductive—or populism, or Marxism, or any other form of Utopianism that looks good on paper and is ruinous in practice.”[7]
The utopia promised by this worldview is not one of equality, where all people are treated equally as image-bearers of God. This worldview is calling for a utopia of equity, where all people end up in the same place, brought about through the practice of discrimination and the power of the State. And history shows that when governments seek to create these kinds of utopias the results can be deadly on a hauntingly massive scale.
So, what should you do?
Do what reasonable people do: ask questions without fear. Do not fear being considered a racist because more than likely you are already considered one by proponents of this worldview. Without fear, when someone holds up a cup and proclaims it is a cup, ask them to pour water into it to see what happens. In other words, ask questions. “What do you mean by that? How do we do that? What exactly is racist in American culture? How do you know that to be true? What do you mean when you say…?”
