Alright, I hope you’ve all stuck around this far. This chapter goes over what Kendi calls dueling consciousness. This is based on the term double consciousness popularized by W.E.B. Du Bois. It basically means, because Kendi nor Du Bois really put together a coherent thought on what the strict definition should be, an internal struggle of group (identity) consciousness. This will come up a little later in the chapter, but first, let’s get to the definitions found at the beginning of the chapter. Kendi starts out by defining, or redefining, the words Assimilationist, Segregationist, and Antiracist.

“ASSIMILATIONIST: One who is expressing the racist idea that a racial group is culturally or behaviorally inferior and is supporting cultural or behavior enrichment programs to develop that racial group.
SEGREGATIONIST: One who is expressing the racist idea that a permanently inferior racial group can never be developed and is supporting policy that segregates away that racial group.
ANATIRACIST: One who is expressing the idea that racial groups are equals and none needs developing, and is supporting policy that reduces racial inequity.”

So, let’s start out by giving credit where credit is due. The definition Kendi gives for segregationist is pretty airtight. On the other hand, the definition of assimilationist, of which I suppose is a group I might consider myself a part of, has made a distinction that subjects it to scope drift. Most people who want assimilation are not targeting a whole race, they want a specific group of individuals (like a neighborhood or community) who are underperforming to catch up with the rest of society. You know, the whole equity thing. So in reality, the definition for assimilationist could be flipped with Kendi’s definition of antiracist. In fact, these definitions ought to be flipped. We all know that certain behaviors should not be tolerated in polite society, so we assimilate individuals who show that behavior into a more acceptable behavior. A more uncomfortable truth is culture acts in the same way. There are good and bad aspects to every culture, and calling that out shouldn’t be considered racist, especially since race isn’t biologically tied to culture. Making this conflation is by definition racist, unless of course, you change the definition of racist.

“The Reagan Revolution was just that: a radical revolution for the benefit of the already powerful. It further enriched high-income Americans by cutting their taxes.”

I added this short quote here not because I think it adds value to the main topic of the chapter, but because it touches on a pet peeve of mine. “Enriched high-income Americans by cutting their taxes.” You can’t, unless we change the definition, enrich someone by allowing them to KEEP more of THEIR money. Sorry for going on this typical conservative tangent, but injecting a bit of logic into this review might not be a bad thing. #ProbablyRacist

“Assimilationist ideas are racist ideas. Assimilationists can position any racial group as the superior standard that another racial group should be measuring themselves against, the benchmark they should be trying to reach.”
“Assimilationist ideas and segregationist ideas are the two types of racist ideas, the duel within thought.”
“Assimilationists believe that people of color can, in fact, be developed, become fully human, just like White people.”

This again uses scope drift, or at least bad assumptions, to make his claims true. The White standard is not a real thing. It’s like saying “white people invented the telephone.” No, white people didn’t invent anything. People who happen to be white invented some things. This doesn’t mean that none of the claims Kendi makes have never been true, but to conflate ideas of the past with the good intentions of the present is a bad strategy for progress. There is a standard we ought to do our best to meet, but that standard doesn’t have a skin tone because it’s an idea, not a person.

“Black self-reliance was a double-edged sword. One side was an abhorrence of White supremacy and White paternalism, White rulers and White saviors. On the other hand, a love of Black rulers and Black saviors, of Black paternalism. On one side was the antiracist belief that Black people were entirely capable of ruling themselves, of relying on themselves. On the other, the assimilationist idea that Black people should focus on pulling themselves up by their baggy jeans and tight halter tops, getting off crack, street corners, and government “handouts,” as if those were things partially holding their incomes down. This dueling consciousness nourished Black pride by insisting that there was nothing wrong with Black people, but it also cultivated shame with its implication that there was something behaviorally wrong with Black people… well, at least those other Black people. If the problem was in our own behavior, then Reagan revolutionaries were not keeping Black people down – we were keeping ourselves down.”

This paragraph opens the door to the mind of someone who is great at pushing off accountability to other people. We all know someone like this. He or she must blame someone or something else for all the problems in their life because, of course, he or she can’t be held accountable for what has happened in their life nor can they be expected to make their own situation better. The only good points Kendi makes here is we should not be looking for rulers or saviors of any color, although it doesn’t seem like Kendi stays consistent with that message throughout the book. There is no doubt that racist policies of the past, or what is commonly referred to as “echoes of racism,” have put many black Americans several steps behind some of the more privileged white Americans, and that creates a negative feedback loop that tells underprivileged black Americans that they are being held back by an external force and there is no way to move themselves forward. There aren’t many racists running around forcing fathers out of the home, and the best way to not get arrested for drug possession, even if you find the War on Drugs to be a bad idea, is to not use or distribute drugs. People like Kendi try to stop this negative feedback loop with some sort of utopian policy that will correct every imbalance and injustice, but we know no such policy exists. The best way to end the negative feedback loop is individual agency. We must teach everyone, no matter their skin color or privileges, that it is up to you, as the individual, to start making your situation better. Even if you can literally see the person or people holding you down, it is up to you to get back up. Of course, there are policies and changes to current law that will lighten the grip on whatever external force may be holding you back, but in the end, YOU must change your situation, not some ruler or savior.

“The dueling White consciousness fashioned two types of racist policies, reflecting the duel of racist ideas. Since assimilationists posit cultural and behavioral hierarchy, assimilationist policies and programs are geared toward developing, civilizing, and integrating a racial group (to distinguish from programs that uplift individuals). Since segregationists posit the incapability of a racial group to be civilized and developed, segregationist policies are geared toward segregating, enslaving, incarcerating, deporting, and killing. Since antiracists posit that racial groups are already civilized, antiracist policies are geared toward reducing racial inequities and creating equal opportunity.”

Again, Kendi conflates culture and behavior with race. When you disassociate the two, the whole idea expressed in the paragraph above falls apart. I still wanted to cite the paragraph above so you can get a better idea of the manipulation needed build the false equivalence Kendi uses in his message in this chapter. If you eliminate the word racial in front of group, the paragraph above makes sense except for the last sentence. The last sentence has a critical contradiction within it. Reducing “racial inequities,” meaning the racially proportional outcomes, will not be achieved by creating “equal opportunity” because two groups never have the same outcome, especially with groups this large in a country as big as the United States. You don’t really see racial equity in any countries around the world. There will always be disparities in outcomes when comparing large groups to each other. This is a well-known statistical fact. To create that equity, equality of outcome will need to be regulated. Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are directly at odds. I’m totally fine with looking at disparities and finding ways to make the system more fair, but I’m not willing to trade away progress and innovation for controlled outcomes.

“History duels: the undeniable history of antiracist progress, the undeniable history of racist progress. Before and after the Civil War, before and after civil rights, before and after the first Black presidency, the White consciousness duels. The White body defines the American body. The White body segregates the Black body from the American body. The White body instructs the Black body to assimilate into the American body. The White body rejects the Black body assimilating into the American body – and history and consciousness dual anew.”
“The Black body in turn experiences the same duel. The Black body is instructed to become an American body. The American body is the White body. The Black body strives to assimilate into the American body. The American body rejects the Black body. The Black body separates from the American body. The Black body is instructed to assimilate into the American body – and history and consciousness duel anew.”
“But there is a way to get free. To be antiracist is to emancipate oneself from the dueling consciousness. To be antiracist is to conquer the assimilationist consciousness and segregationist consciousness. The White body no longer strives to be the American body, knowing there is no such thing as the American body, only American bodies, racialized by power.”

No, this review is not sponsored by Advil and I swear, I did not just add these last few paragraphs to give you a headache. Kendi uses legitimate past behaviors to imply there is a constant loop of assimilation and segregation and black Americans should not be complicit in that behavior. The final paragraph is actually quite a beautiful sentiment that shows black Americans shouldn’t see the American body as a White body anymore, but only see American bodies. What an amazing message, and I happen to totally agree. But wait… Kendi must end with a parting shot that seems to go against the optimistic message proceeding it. “Racialized by power.” Just as I thought we were going to agree on something, he ends the chapter by hinting black Americans are powerless in the current day white supremacist power structure we all live under. Man, what a way to torpedo your own empowering message. We must encourage and empower the disenfranchised and underprivileged individuals in our society to make their own path using the inherent privileges protected in the American experiment, not discouraged those same individuals by teaching them to see everything through the lens of race and racist or antiracist ideas. Let people know they are people, not a skin color.

Thanks for reading my rant style review of the second chapter of How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi. Please let me know if you find this useful. My goal here is to explain each chapter enough and in a somewhat objective way so others don’t waste their time and money on investigating this material themselves. I know this kind of goes against the logic of investigation where you want to read the source material yourself and build your own conclusions, but this is a very shallow read that does not strain the mind, in any positive way at least, like any proper academic book should. Please leave a comment with your thoughts.

Thanks for being a part of the Engineering Politics Locals Community!