What Does It Mean To Be An "Antiracist"? (Part 2 of 4)

Having established in part 1 of this 4-part blog series what is the big idea of “wokeness” as it pertains to race and racism, we move now to examine the calls to action leading voices are making. Simply asked, if you believe in the ideas of the modern social justice movement, what should you do?

What needs to be understood up front is that to be an “antiracist” does not merely mean you condemn racism, don’t practice racism, and love all people equally regardless of skin color. That is surely included in the definition of “antiracist” but it not the ultimate or end goal of what it means to be an “antiracist”.

With that being said, one of the first steps in becoming an antiracist is to confess your racism. This is the main battleground DiAngelo writes about as she sees white people refusing to confess their racism. She calls this “white fragility”. According to DiAngelo, white people condemn racism but they won’t admit their own racism and hate it when they are accused of racism. Thus, they deny those accusations in their fragility. DiAngelo gives numerous marks of white fragility, the ways in which white people respond to the accusation that they are racist. White fragility is just further concrete evidence of white supremacy. DiAngelo’s marks of white fragility, being almost endless in nature, makes the conclusion that all white people are racist. If a white person confesses their racism, they admit they are racist. If they deny they are racist, they show they are racist. You can either remain a racist (admitting it or not) or you can admit it and become an antiracist.  

This is why, according to DiAngelo, the only appropriate response to someone telling you that you are racist is to say “thank you”. Stop arguing that you are not a racist, as this only proves how racist you are. One must not miss this logic because it has an enormous effect on the ground when discussing these topics at work, in school, at the bar, or at church. Intrinsic to the foundation of this worldview is that those who think this worldview is wrong are proving that the worldview is right. Kendi makes this clear, writing, “The claim of ‘not racist’ neutrality is a mask for racism.”

In other words, this is how the worldview argues:

Premise #1: America is embedded with racism and all people are either victims of racism or perpetuators of racism.

Premise #2: If you disagree with premise #1, saying you are “not racist”, you prove premise #1 is true.

Conclusion: Disagreement with this worldview proves this worldview is correct.

Again, this is perhaps why DiAngelo saw no need to “prove that racism exists” because all she needed to do was prove that white people sometimes reject the accusation that they are racist. This in turn, according to her worldview, proved her worldview to be true. This is precisely what makes any discussion on this topic so difficult for most people because any disagreement necessitates the accusation of racism. For example, if an organization’s mission is driven by this worldview then disagreement with that mission is not merely disagreement but some kind of racist oppression or persecution of that mission.

Broadly speaking, this logic rests not necessarily on what accords with reality but on what accords with subjective experience. The “boundary between that which is objectively true and that which is subjectively experienced” is blurred.[1] Like a postmodern worldview, this worldview “refuses to substantiate itself and cannot, therefore, be argued with”.[2]

In other words, if someone feels they have been a victim of racism, they have. It is almost irrelevant to prove anything. This worldview does not seem to care about what is objectively true and real but what is the lived experience of a person or group. Kendi makes clear that, “‘It is impossible to be objective.’”[3] Truth, in this worldview, is not about something corresponding to reality but something corresponding to subjective experience.[4] What is key is that the subjective experiencing of someone claiming they are a victim, or claiming that white supremacy rules America, always discredits the claim of someone else saying they are not racist.[5]

First, you must admit you are a racist. Second, you must act. There is no room in this worldview to merely agree. Ten years ago the call to action was to simply be “aware” of racism in America (condemning racism was assumed to be the norm). Now, this is no longer sufficient as this worldview demands activism. “The only wrong action is inaction”, writes Tisby.[6] Tisby wrote his book to lead everyone to “immediate, fierce actions to confess [our failure to confront racism in the church] and work for justice.”[7] There are only two options for you as a human: remain a racist or fight against racism (i.e. be an antiracist). “…there is no neutrality in the racism struggle. The opposite of ‘racist’ isn’t ‘not racist.’ It is ‘anti-racist’”.[8]

What does an antiracist get busy doing? An antiracist is not someone merely loving everyone equally, regardless of their skin color or station in life. It does not mean simply being a good “neighbor” to everyone, regardless of skin color. Being an antiracist is about getting at the root of all of society and doing the work of uprooting. It is about changing the sweepingly racist “…written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines” and “laws, policies, practices, and norms of society”. This problem is so embedded in culture that even if no one was a racist, our current “culture” would automatically make us racist, according to DiAngelo.[9] Capitalism as we know it in America is racist.[10] Climate change is even connected to racism. Therefore, whatever is needed is a sweeping dismantling and rebuilding of American “…written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines” and “laws, policies, practices, and norms of society” and “culture”. Antiracism is about, according to Jemar Tisby, Jesus needing to “deconstruct” and “remake” America and the church in America “into a house for all nations.”[13]

Therefore, the end game for eradicating racism is not personal or relational transformation. These authors are not arguing for white people to love and serve their non-white neighbors like any other image-bearer of God. The goal, while often unclear, seems to be no less than starting over. For example, Tisby thinks some or all seminaries are beyond the ability to be redeemed. We need brand new seminaries. Remember, Tisby thinks America’s leaders “embedded race into the foundation of both the fledgling American nation and the church”, both now having a “flawed foundation” that Jesus needs to “deconstruct” and “remake…into a house for all nations.”[11]  To be antiracist is to understand that America and the church in America needs to be disrupted, dismantled, and built anew.

The dismantling and rebuilding may be done by discriminating in favor of black people. While racialization and racial discrimination have been core to the whole problem, they are said to be the way out. To be an antiracist is to uphold racial categories and discriminate based on them, just in the opposite direction. Kendi writes,  “The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination”.

Laws, policies, norms, systems, etc. need to be changed to discriminate in favor of black people. Again, the call is not for laws, policies, norms, etc. that treat all people equally. It is still unclear what current laws, policies, norms, systems in focus currently treat people of different skin colors unequally. Actually, the call is for systems to create in the end not just equality but equity. For example, if there is a racial disparity in income then policies, laws, norms, systems, etc. should be put in place so that money can be given to those who do not have as much money. This would be where, for instance, the conversation about reparations enters. The endgame is not equality but equity.

Let’s use Lindsay’s example again to understand this. The right way of responding to a black man and a white man entering your store at the same time is not to be “color-blind” and treat them equally. It is not to merely pick one randomly to help, regardless of their skin color. You ought to discriminate in this instance. You ought to assume the black man has lived under the oppression of white supremacy and therefore choose to help him first, favoring him based on his skin color and the assumptions you ought to make about him based on his skin color.

DiAngelo embraces this positive view of discrimination when she demeans the ideas of being “taught to treat everyone the same”, saying that is impossible. We must embrace the fact that we all “judge” and “make assumptions”.[12] This worldview demands we discriminate and embrace the very thing at the heart of the problem: the idea of race. For instance, even though DiAngelo says “a positive white identity is an impossible goal”, rather than ditching the social construct altogether, we still must continue identifying as “white” and now seek to be “less white”.[13]

This still leaves the question of what an antiracist actually does a bit vague. Just as what “systems” are racist is left unclear, so are the precise action steps at times. However, these authors do give some specific calls to action and in general an antiracist is a political activist. An antiracist is looking to the government to reform society and to reform the government itself. It is looking to utilize the government to bring about social “justice”, defined on its own terms. For examples, the following are topics highlighted that antiracism is focused on: the government creating equity, the govt.’s alleged suppression of voters, police violence, reparations, capitalism, and voting.

The main thing to understand about what it means to be an antiracist is that it does not fundamentally or centrally mean being someone who is not racist and treats everyone with the same love, dignity, and respect, regardless of skin color. That is the mere baseline starting point and may actually be irrelevant. After that, to be woke or to be an antiracist means you fix your eyes on governmental problems, reform, and solutions. Usually, this means an antiracist votes a certain way. However, it largely remains unclear exactly what, in Tisby’s words, needs to be deconstructed and remade. For example, it is clear that America’s laws allowing abortion are immoral and evil. But it is largely unclear what “…written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines” and “laws, policies, practices, and norms of society” need to change regarding race and racism.

Footnotes:

[1] Lindsay & Pluckrose, Cynical Theories, 29

[2] Lindsay & Pluckrose, Cynical Theories, 38

[3] Kendi, How To Be An Antiracist, 167; DiAngelo, White Fragility, 79

[4] Kendi, How To Be An Antiracist, 167

[5] DiAngelo, White Fragility, 127

[6] Tisby, The Color of Compromise, 185

[7] Tisby, The Color of Compromise, 24

[8] Kendi, How To Be An Antiracist, 9

[9] DiAngelo, White Fragility, 153-154

[10] Kendi, How To Be An Antiracist, Pg. TBD

[11] Tisby, The Color of Compromise, 57, 24

[12] DiAngelo, White Fragility, 126

[13] DiAngelo, White Fragility, 149-150