“How To Be An Antiracist:” A Review
“The Hard Part Is Choosing to Change What Needs Changing”
-Martina McBride
I will be upfront right from the start. When I first heard of the term “Antiracist” I had my reservations. Coming from the Mother Teresa school of thought, where concentrating ones energy on the thing you are against (“anti”) rather than what you are for (“pro”) does not often lead to the outcome one desires, my concern revolved around the ambiguity of the label and, even more so, their process to achieve a state of undoing systemic racism. My hope was to gain that clarity through Dr. Ibram X. Kendi’s book “How to Be An Antiracist.”
Dr. Kendi, whose work “Stamped from the Beginning” was responsible for garnering him praise as respected academic and activist. His most recent accomplishment, though, is the Center for Antiracist Research. An institute that he leads at Boston University. His passion, brilliance and commitment to the antiracist movement made me a cautious optimistic when it came to reading his latest work. In my mind the best scenario would be to come away inspired and amplifying the antiracist concepts in my own work as an educator and youth activist. Unfortunately, upon further review, this would not be the end result.
“How to Be An Antiracist” is both perplexing and confusing. Its narrative and conclusions are steeped in altruistic ambiguity. Instead of authoring a manual that unapologetically details the hard process the reader must commit to, in the effort to dismantle systemic racism, he produces a text that is safe for even the most racially sensitive and fragile minds to enthusiastically embrace and engage in. Furthermore, it is meticulously crafted to the white reader in a way that provides a belief that they are fully equipped and empowered to combat systemic racism without going through the hard process of personal introspection. Whether intentional or unintentional, by absolving the reader of the process of self introspection Dr. Kendi, inexplicably, loses the opportunity to use his book to have each individual assess their own racial biases as well as the ways to which they may be beneficiaries of the very same system of institutionalized racism that he charges the reader to dismantle. To put it bluntly, Dr. Kendi fails to deliver on the actual premise of the book: The “How To.” Instead we are given a 305 page mission statement void of the key benchmarks and the step by step process critical to the radical paradigm shift which is undoing systemic racism.
Dr. Kendi is very clear and intentional regarding the objective of the book. His desire is to provide an instructional on becoming an antiracist for the purpose of identifying and dismantling systemic racism. In making his case he employs four prevailing story lines throughout the book. The first, a semi-biographical journey through his own life and transformation into an antiracist. Second, a detailed account of the historical events and policies that influenced the creation of systemic and institutionalized racism. Third, he offers his own varying definitions of racism and antiracism. Ranging from terms such as the cultural racist, ethnic racist, biological racist to even the much debated “Black racist.” Lastly, his recommendation, the process, on what must be done for the reader to shift to the anti-racist mindset. Dr. Kendi does an amazing job in his detail of the first two story lines. In fact, had he constructed a text that was a biography about his life or a historical study of the creation and evolution of systemic racism he would have, arguably, authored a book that would have surpassed “Stamped from the Beginning.” Instead his ambiguous and convoluted articulation of the definitions of racism, accompanied by the over simplification for identifying and dismantling racism, not only blunts the impact of the book’s primary objective but creates a dangerous false illusion to the reader regarding the ease to which this can be accomplished.
Lets investigate further. Take, for example, his definitions of racist, biological racist and ethnic racist:
Racist
One who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea.Biological Racist
One who is expressing the idea that the races are meaningfully different in their biology and that thees differences create a hierarchy of value.Ethnic Racist
A powerful collection of racist policies that lead to inequity between racialized ethnic groups and are substantiated by racist ideas about racialized ethnic groups.
Throughout the book he presents us with 15 different iterations of the definition racist, all of his own creation. This creates an unwarranted problem because it renders the term racist, the belief that an individual or group is superior or inferior to another, ambiguous. This ambiguity can lead the reader to the ill conceived notion that one can be racist in one category but not in another. Not to make light of it, but it is almost akin to creating a buffet style/pick and choose approach to defining who or what is or is not racism. It creates an unnecessary false equivalency between the definitions. The reality is there is not equivalency. Racism IS the root cause and these contrived iterations are nothing more than symptoms of it. If your institution, school or community is biologically racist it will be ethnically racist. If it is ethnically racist it will be gender racist (whatever that means). If it is gender racist then it will be class racist. Etc, etc, etc. No matter how many definitions of racism are created you cannot dismantle systemic racism until you focus on addressing…racism. To do otherwise is to create a failed strategic plan of dismantling racism built upon an approach of paralysis of racial analysis. Whether individually or institutionally you are either going to be one who fights to undue systemic racism or you are not. Just as certain readers must go through the process of asking themselves if they are the beneficiary of racist policies and systems or not. Its is this last point, which I believe, is the most fatal flaw in the mission of the text.
“THE ONLY WAY TO UNDO RACISM IS TO CONSISTENTLY IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE IT-AND THEN DISMANTLE IT.”
-Dr. Imbram X. Kendi
Anyone, who desires to see the end of systemic racism, would nod their head in approval with this statement, including myself, the problem is Dr. Kendi frames this book as a “How to.” When one denotes something as a “how to” it is assumed to describe, in detail, a step by step process. In this case a process of how to dismantle and end racism. The part of the process most evident in its absence of self introspection. That introspection is the personal reckoning, when it comes to a persons own conscious or unconscious racist beliefs and practices, that someone must go through before declaring themselves as an antiracist. This is something that cannot be avoided. How can one identify and undue racism if they first have not gone through the hard and uncomfortable process of identifying and undoing the racist beliefs they may hold? Regardless of how small or subtle they may be?
Now, I assume, the counter argument would be that he does require the introspection and personal change of the reader in the book and that it is emphasized in every chapter. Well, there are several problems with this argument. The first of which is his argument that simply choosing to become an antiracist is all that is required to become one. This though goes against the theory and process of change. There exists centuries of historical evidence that proves how hard change, especially radical change. While resistance to institutional change has resulted in everything, from a simple workers strike to a global war, behavioral and cultural change have historically been the most difficult. This is where Dr. Kendi does his audience, especially the sympathetic and allied white audience, a grave disservice. His avoidance of acknowledging the level of difficulty of behavioral change, especially around our perceptions of race, that it would take for the individual to make is what ultimately sabotages the mission of the book.
Lets delve into this further. In Psychology Today’s article “Why is Change So Hard?”, LMSW Kathrine Schreiber, quotes psychologist James Prochaska:
“…we often find ourselves in the previously described predicaments as a result of our perception of change. Behavioral change is rarely a discrete or single event; however, we tend to view it that way.”
In this case, the singular event or act that Dr. Kendi proposes, is the act of choice. Choosing to be antiracist. But we have to question the validity of such a simple process if, the person making the choice, has come up in an environment and culture to where racist thoughts and practices were the norm or where the person has been the beneficiary of systemic racism whether voluntarily or involuntarily (also known as white privilege). Without going through the process of self assessment in these areas then behavioral change is as fallacy. Behavioral change is the opposite of a singular event. It is a long, hard, uncomfortable process of internal investigative behavioral disruption. Without it the illusion lives on. Far more dangerous than a racist? Someone who maintains a racist culture that believes they are not racist. Unfortuantely history is ripe with individuals and institutions that have had this mindset. Claiming to be on the forefront of fighting for racial justice while maintaining cultures and policies within their institutions ripe with them.
For example, in the non profit and philanthropic sector, a report by Bridgespan found that Black led and Black focused non profit organizations had 45 percent less revenue and that there unrestricted assets were 91 percent lower than white led institutions. A 2016 study by Board Source and the US Census Bureau, noted in “The Conversation” found that 90% of all Non Profit CEO’s and Board Chairmen were white, in contrast to 4% that were Black, and 84% of all Board of Directors were white while on 8% Black. Consider this about the sector itself. The purpose of the non profit and philanthropic sector, more than any other sector, is to improve the general well being of humanity while being the leader in addressing and solving the problems affecting the world today. Yet, even in the sector that symbolizes the fight for humanity, equality and social justice, it is ripe with unintentional, as well as, intentional systemic racism through its ranks. Michelle Norris and Sean Gibbons, in their article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, “Non Profits and Foundations are Unintentionally Promoting Racism: Here’s How to Stop.” Provide the best statement when talking about the unintended harm that foundations and non profits do:
That’s why it’s easy to cause unintended harm if foundations and nonprofits are not vigilant about seeing their own blind spots on systemic and structural racism and privilege.
But this is not limited to philanthropy and the non profit world. Assess any industry, especially those focused on human rights and improvement, and you will find the same. From the health industry, which still fails Black women at tragic proportions, to an educational system where bias towards Black children is as normal as the school day. Yet I am sure, if you spoke to any health professional, they would say they treat all of their patients with the same care. If you spoke to any teacher they would say they love their children all the same. But, as Ms. Norris and Mr. Gibbons point out, just like in philanthropy, this is a consequence of not being vigilant of seeing one’s own blind stops on racism. Still, why is this so hard? Maybe its because we avoid the real elephant in the room in the conversation, the reality that many who want to lead the charge to fight against racism and racist systems have also benefited from it. How willing will the reader be to dismantle a system and culture to which they are a beneficiary of, directly or indirectly?
“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. For the innovator has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order…”
-Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
Machiavelli articulates what is the greatest obstacle for change: those who benefit, in profit or power, from the old way. If we consider the current state of systemic and institutional racism as the “old order “ we may be tempted to define it by its extreme image of those in white hoods, flying Confederate flags and spewing white supremacist ideology. but we know that’s not the entire picture. Many, who desire to be seen as antiracists, must, through introspection ask themselves if they have been beneficiaries, whether indirectly or directly, of racism. Nonsense? Well consider the non profit or foundation, dedicated to racial justice and equality, whose board of directors is totally white. The city, whose citizens advocate loudly for liberal and progressive policies, but remain eerily silent when it comes to disparities in city and school budget allocations to the African American section of the town. Or the Amy Coopers of the world, who uses white privilege to call upon the tools and weapons of racism at their disposal, to protect ones sacred space of perceived power from Black people. In each case these institutions and individuals would not call themselves racist and some would say they are antiracist, yet their actions either slowed the process of change or brought it to a screeching halt. Why? Because, at its core, racism is power. So the question is how willing is the antiracist willing to give up that which they’ve benefited from? Especially, if doing so, is what is necessary for Black people to write their own narrative of advancement and empowerment?
Power is a multi faceted definition. One aspect of power is the ability to write and control narrative. Whomever control narrative controls the perception which the masses view the subject through the lens. In this case the subject being African Americans. Throughout American history the narrative of emancipation, advancement and empowerment has been credited more to white Americans than African Americans. This is known as “white saviorism.” Saviorism has dominated our psyche and history text books from the Abolitionist movement to Abraham Lincoln; from Black tie galas to every single movie that tells the story of a Black person triumphing over adversity with the help of their white companion. Case in point? In the era of Black Lives Matter, the number one trending movie on Netflix was “the Help.” Yet white saviorism is a contradiction. Creating an image to emancipate, advance and empower Black people while also maintaining an image of superiority over those same Black people by positioning oneself as the “saviors.” I call this the “permittivity of equality.” Where those who have never had to endure systemic oppression and inequality are the same ones who define the policies and are the providers of the equity and access for those who have been marginalized by
the system.
Take education, for example. Terms such as “at risk,” “under served,” “under resourced” and/or “school to prison pipeline” are common companions when it comes to describing Black youth impacted by the systemic racism that permeates our K-12 educational institutions. This is also known as deficit narratives. Where the dominant view is in the negative, or the “anti” than the positive, or the “pro.” For instance, one time I was attending a conference where the Ph.d level facilitator told us every horrible statistic regarding Black boys in schools. Ranging from drug usage, dropout rates, suspension disparities and literacy deficiencies. Yet, when I asked him what percentage of the Black students were in honors or AP classes, he did not know. In fact, he did not even bother to research the information. Why? Because it did not fit the narrative on how we view African Americans, especially in spaces and narratives that have been white dominated. Why research how many Black boys are academic achievers if I do not view you as someone I naturally expect to see in that space because it goes against the narrative? A narrative based in determining who is superior and who is inferior in the relationship. This is where the resistance comes.
Trevor Noah said it best about this contradiction, regarding national stories on questioning the Blackness of Senator and Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris: “Your blackness as a person is never questioned in failure, but in success it gets put under the microscope." The resistance comes in the form of the Black student attending a top university who is quizzed on why and how they were accepted? The school district that has no problem creating a restorative justice program but push back from the community on how many Black students are accepted into the gifted and talented program. Or the Black family that moves into a high net worth area constantly asked to verify where they live. This leads us to a fundamental question that the antiracist must ask themselves, what does undoing racism look like to you? More importantly, who is in control of writing that narrative? The antiracist who comes from a culture and environment that has allowed them to be the beneficiary of the system of institutional racism? Or the antiracist that has constantly and consistently bore the brunt of the systems impact? If part of the theory of change requires surrendering, does the antiracist within the power structure have the courage to defer that same power to those without?
Finally Dr. Kendi makes a compelling argument that we should view racism in the same light as we view cancer and treat its process of removal in the same method. In his final chapter, Survival, he articulates the following epiphany:
“What if we treated racism in the way we treat cancer?…Remove any racist policies, the way surgeons remove the tumors. Ensure there are clear margins, meaning no cancer cells of inequity left in the body politic, only the healthy cells of equity.”
This is indeed a powerful argument and being that much of it is influenced by Dr. Kendi’s courageous fight and triumph over cancer, it has a deeper meaning. For myself I do not disagree with the analogy nor the altruistic process and, to be fair, he does go into more detail on how racism could be removed like cancer in an earlier part of the chapter. Still I tend to wonder, not if this is the right analogy but the only analogy.
Like the dueling consciousness of the individual that Dr. Kendi speaks of what if racism, as a disease, also exists in duality? As both a cancer and an addiction? Cancers, for the most part, is an involuntary disease that affects those based on genetics or the external environment they are exposed to. On the other hand, addiction is a disease defined by the American Psychiatric Association as: “A complex condition, a brain disease that is manifested by compulsive substance use despite harmful consequence.” If we can view racism as a cancer why should we also not view it as an addiction to where there is a compulsive desire to retain the power and benefits that systemic racism provides even though we’ve known of its harmful consequences since the 17th century?
Viewing racism as an addiction means prescribing an entirely different treatment plan than cancer. Unlike cancer, where the antiracist acts as the doctor, investigating, detecting and removing the “cancer cells” of racism, the treatment and recovery from addiction is far more personal and introspective. One where the aspiring antiracist is not the doctor but the patient on the road to recovery and treatment is not detection and removal but a 12 step internal process that requires personal introspection, surrender and community support. To be clear, I have no objection to the analogy of racism as a cancer. I just believe, depending on where and who you are in the journey, before one can make the decision to dismantle and undue racist systems as an antiracist one must first ask themselves the hard question. Am I the doctor or am I the patient? Or both?
These are critical and hard questions that we all must ask for they are not easy and, I tend to believe, if Dr. Kendi had asked these questions maybe the book would not have been as enthusiastically received. That said, we should always caution ourselves to ideas that are quickly grasped by the masses when it comes to the matter of change. For change is always difficult and it is those who have the courage to face those difficult moments that end up victorious. As altruistic and inspirational this book is, the lack of posing the hard questions and the challenges along the antiracist journey is what ultimately makes any real effort towards undoing racism fall short of its mark.