Oh that’s a good one. I think someone should count how many times that this a-hole said the word racist, it’s got to be record. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone ever say the word racist so many times in my life.
President Lincoln asked a jury, “If you call a dogs leg a tail, how many legs does a dog have? “ The jury replied, “ 5 “ President Lincoln answered, “ No. The correct answer is four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.” What’s the moral? A tail is still a tale, it can never be a leg no matter what you change it’s name to.”
"I would define my excellence as excellence achieved by being excellent in a realm of tremendous excellence at a high level of outstanding excellence." This is fun. Keep it going!
Anyone notice how during the question period, when asked what the definition of racism is, Kendi used the term racist in the definition of racism? That's a circular definition, which is ironic when it's coming from a guy who criticizes people who can't define the term 'racism'.
I did notice that, and was a little disappointed that he did not delve deeper into the definition. Keep in mind that the question segment is very short, therefore time is limited. He did not want to go back to re-difining racism/racist as he already did during his talk. Not making an excuse for him, but he did defiine exactly what racism is during the conversation. It would have been good to hear it in closing as well. I agree that he should have summarized his definition of racism without using the word racist.
@@bdubsmusclepakk No, the reason he was asked that question in the first place is because he didn't actually give a definition of the term. Instead, he created a strawman definition of the term that he thinks "racists" use, which he then knocked down, as you do with strawmen. It isn't hard to define what racism is. I could define it very quickly and I am by no means an expert in racial issues. His problem is that he's twisting what it means to be racist, which is why he's having such as hard time giving a clear, succinct definition, which is just so ironic in so many ways.
@@quelquely I'd define racism as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed towards a person or people based on their particular race. How would you define it?
Question: what is water? Kendi: water is a collection of watery aqueous elements which occur wherever there is watery liquid in the sense that water is understood
The best part is that in the lecture, he emphasizes that in order to properly debate racism, you have to agree on a definition, and he clearly hasn’t put ANY thought into that definition
More importantly, you can't be just dry. You are either wet or you are anti-wet. If you aren't anti-wet in a mostly more-or-less wet policy world then you are not dry.
@@Mr._Moderate That his point of view, his theories can hold up to scrutiny ? That he can defend his claims? This man should be allowed to have the impact he's having, and we should just blindly follow his theories that he has never demonstrated an ability to defend? You're kidding right?
@@michelejansen5790 These people don't think facts/logic/reality matter. They think such things as requiring proof are racist constructs. There is no helping them and no way by which you can even meaningfully engage with them.
@@NervousDisordo "Butter is a collection of butter policies, that lead to butter inequity, that are substantiated in butter ideas". So where are these "butter policies"? Id like to see the professor give us some examples.
@@Thundernymph Candace Owens and Coleman Hughes have very little in common and to strip away those differences and conflate the two because they happen to have a similar complexion is dare I say it, rather racist.
@@SpaceLikeAwareness You like those Black outliers...me too...and I disagree with much of what they have to offer the Native Black American community. THOSE PEOPLE are 'beloved' in the White American Community, which is why most NBAs are suspicious of them. Shelby gives me the heebie-geebies though...such a creepy face.
Eight Simple Rules to Being an Antiracist 1) Stop assuming certain people cannot be racist 2) Stop telling people they are inherent victims 3) Stop telling people they owe you something 4) Stop redefining the word "racist/racism" 5) Stop assuming when there is a racist confrontation, one group is inherent antagonist and the other inherent innocent victim 6) Stop assuming every time you do not get what you want, it's because of racism 7) Stop demanding "an honest discussion about race" but never listen to opposition 8) Stop profiting from racism via disingenuously writing books or TV programs about it
9) Stop saying other people are privileged when they lose their jobs and careers for uttering a certain word you say all the time or if they offend you in a way you think is racist.
This certainly hasn't aged well !😅 The most recent chapter: Boston University announced an official investigation into his "Center for Antiracist Research" which hoovered over $40 million yet produced virtually no research, and then he laid off nearly half of his employees, who accordingly accused him of mismanaging funds, failing to deliver key projects, and mistreating his team. And I'm not even a conservative, just someone with eyes wide open who isn't afraid to admit that I was wrong.
"Racism is not dead, but it is on life support - kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as "racists." Thomas Sowell
@RCB DOMINION - please explain: 1. how is racism on life support? 2. Who besides Sowell is making this declaration? 3. When did racism start going on life support?
@@Mr._Moderate How is racism on life support? Pretty clear that the country is less racist now compared to the past. The fact that a black man named Barak was elected President in 2009 should tell us something. Was it white guilt that drove white America to elect a him? And if so, did this white guilt somehow disappear after 2016 and white people decided to return to their racist roots? Who besides Sowell is making this declaration? Odd question. I have no idea. And why would the answer to that be relevant? If nobody else is making this declaration, does that make the declaration incorrect? When did racism start going on life support? I would imagine the process began in the 70's with the Generation-X crew.
@@123491622 1. When something is on "life support" it means that it is barely holding on to life. You FAILED to prove that racism is on life support 2. Although racism has lessened over the decades you seem to intimate that racism is not within policy but is strictly men in white sheets and cross-burnings. Incorrect .3. Obama won the United States presidency twice with only 43% of the white vote in 2008, and 39% of the white vote in 2012. 💁 4. Sowell is a pandering buffoon to make such a claim 🤦
I love how this is the top comment. Everyone in America should know Thomas Sowell. Instead everyone knows this guys name instead. Ibram Kendi sounds like a disgruntled woke feminist complaining about men because she had a bad experience with her ex boyfriend.
I should really read Thomas Sowell because everytime I've watched videos or interviews of him I've walked away kinda of disappointed with rather pedestrian conservative analysis, nothing really outlandish but nothing to be too excited either. For the record I find Ibram X Kendi's ideas appaling so it's not a case of blind partisanship.
I really try to understand the justification of policies i disagree with. Almost every time i watch a video advocating for "anti-racist" ideation it comes to group identity and the individual is unambiguously disposable.
I like Mr. Loury, but I didn't like his and Mr. McWhorter's approach in Mr. Kendi. I am fully on their side, but dragging down one another isn't the right way (even when Mr. Kendi was the one, who started it). I would appreciate a big debate on this topic between them.
He's what passes for intellect among blacks, which basically entails repeating something over and over in hopes of shaming those who don't agree. It is typically devoid of substance and relies on ad hominem attacks
@@tchwiss "Passes as intellect amongst blacks". Which blacks exactly? Many black people oppose Kendi. Critical theorists and liberals are the ones who support X kendi. Perhaps, don't put us all in the same monolith.
He seems like a well intentioned guy but completely lacks linear thinking skills. But I fully understand why "objective, linear thinking" was declared to be symptom of whiteness.
So a racist is someone who supports racist ideas and an anti-racist is someone who supports anti-racist ideas. Wow. Thanks for that brilliant explanation. I can’t believe entire academic institutions are buying into this guy.
He has recently bought a 3 million dollar house based on this hussle, so maybe we are the idiots now. I mean the guy is a moron, barely capable of basic comprehension, but he is doing well!
This made my head hurt. A guy trying to look smart and using circular arguments. I don’t even want to see him debate with Coleman Hughes. I have a strong hunch it would be a waste of Hughes’ time.
@@adelkaderchourafi5369 There was a time when being racist was penalized. It is not now that way. It is open season if you are the wrong race. Insulting that race or skin color comes without penalty or risk of any kind. The fact that it carries no risk means that it is not brave to do it. They are not risking anything when they say it, and they're not helping anyone when they do it. It would be like being in Germany in 1940 and insulting the entire Jewish race, or being in Palestine today and insulting Israelis as an entire demographic. They are certain we do not spot their logical fallacy of faulty generalization.
@@troy3456789 look at the sketch of kevin hart, when he say "you white people, you are so white" and other black celebrities. It's normal today to insult white people, ben when it's others, it racism ... this world is crazy.
@@adelkaderchourafi5369 "progressives" LOVE to employ logical fallacies, because they know logic doesn't work to support their ideas. Logic and critical thinking will make the world a better place of course. Anyone that employs generalization about an entire racial demographic, genders, religious, or political demographic is also trying to tell you they don't have a clue. Women that say "We women want this" or "We women do not want that"? (something commonly said by women that talk in those ways), need to be completely ignored.White people that speak for all white people, black people that believe they speak for black people as a whole? All are sounding as stupid as they can possibly be. Yes, criminals and psychopaths tend to have a negative experience around other people, and so do paranoid racists!
Now, finally....more people are learning the history of Identity Politics, from the Frankfurt School through Foucault and Derrida. And are rejecting it as a parasitic attack on thousands of years of human progress and enlightenment.
I can deal with Foucault--his explication of the panopticon is very intelligent, and particularly germane to today's conversations about wokeness. All social media are a panopticon.
I waited the whole conversation for his definition of racism, to really get behind this way of thinking and arguing, and was extremely thankful for the first question to be exactly about that. And then, the "definition" of racism uses the word "racism" in itself. I can't describe my disappointment with that answer. As somebody already commented: that ist called circular reasoning and having watched a conversion with Coleman Hughes, that really hurt.
The question is why does Boston University and parents of students who attend Boston U. charge and pay to get stupid? Even the leftist crowd laughed at his definition thinking he was joking. This is mindless.
So defined racism as a collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas. So yeah, he didn't use the word "racism" to define "racism". He used the word "racist" to define "racism". Those are two different words. Throughout the lecture he defined what he meant by racist policies, racist inequality, and racist ideas. Racist policies are policies that create racial inequity. Racial inequity is when there is inequality that is experienced through racial groups. Racist ideas are ideas that suggest that the racists are inherently unequal, that one race is superior to another race. So you're incorrect that he used the same term to define itself.
@@tboyer86 I understand what you mean, yet, his definition does lack of a clear description of what he thinks is racist. I think he is very able of phrasing nice explanations of what he thinks to be important and true. But that makes it not a good definition. If I would ask you to explain any *ism to me, I would like you to use words that describe this *ism without using the same word stem. Just like "cannibalism is a collection of cannibalistic policies that lead to cannibalistic inequity that are substantiated by cannibalistic ideas" doesn't mean anything to somebody who doesn't know what cannibalism is. The problem is: using "racist" or "racism" in a debate lets everybody use their own definition of these words but doesn't clarify the exact meaning. But only if all participating debaters know, what the definition in the minds of the other debaters is, there can be a real conclusion and they can cater to the others arguments.
I don't understand what is unclear about his definitions. He made it pretty clear that racist ultimately consider the races as unequal and that anti-racists consider the different racial groups as equal. So that when a racist sees a racial inequity they will say the problem is the people, that there is something wrong with them inherently while an anti-racist would argue that no it's not the people, it's policies that have created these inequities. What is so difficult to understand about that?
@@tboyer86 So, a racist is somebody who believes in different races and therefore bases their view on other people on this misconception. You see, that's not what I hear. But that would be a more sensible explanation of racism as I understand it. Do I get it right at least, that he just defines racism as kind of a "political" system rather than a flaw of single human beings? Maybe I missed out on his examples of racist policies and explicit inequity in the laws...
His book really should be titled `How I justify being a racist’. I’m not sure if he’s a scam artist or a true believer in the worst sense. I hope he discovers liberalism at some point. Much love for everyone, I hope you’re having a good day. Sincerely, Boden
@@iankclark The only reason I watch videos like this is just to be certain, in a world of lies and uncertainty, that, yes, this is definitely WRONG. 100%. Maybe there's hope that I will, someday, find something that's RIGHT.
The “Doctor” here was asked to define racism and he said “I would define racism as system of racist policies that are substantiated by racist practices”. He used the word he was asked to define in the definition itself. 😂 And infinite loop. This is the guy the US military Joint Chiefs of Staff are reading and making servicemen read.
Spot on, all racist policies he spoke on are long gone. What he's really saying in orwellian doublespeak is. Hey if your not white we want policies that give you a leg up on whites in the name of equality. Like quotas , lower test standards and preferential treatment. The list goes on and on. They want a better outcome for their people but don't wanna assimilate to make that happen
I think the idea of "defining your terms" is really important. Calling someone a racist won't have the potential for change that asking someone to define what racism means.
Great point! There are intra-race racists, e.g., well to do whites deploring poor whites, etc (this happens with black folks too). My ancestry is Irish, and for those who do not know it, they were called "white niggers" upon their taking up residence in the U.S. and "regular" white folks were told to stay away from them. All of us, no matter the race, nationality, etc. need to realize a VERY IMPORTANT, and VERY EASY THING: We are ALL humans, worthy of respect, and decency.
@@jimgallagher5902 "... all of us, no matter the race, nationality etc need to realize it's very important and a VERY EASY THING: we are all human, worthy of respect and decency". Me: the people that need to practice this "VERY EASY THING" are white people because white people are the only ones that I see not treating people with decency, worthiness and respect i.e., calling cops on black ppl because they won't show them where they live in an apartment that they live in, calling the police on black people for barbecuing in the park, hoping the cops will come and kill them ( Central Park lying Karen), to name a few GOH. I don't see black and brown people doing this two other people
On May 25 a black man was killed in what looked like a very flawed arrest. Now, 2 months down the road, many persons (a lot of them white) seem to have "discovered" a deep and serious oppression they didn't discern on May 24. This all seems very odd. Is it possible the Left is using that minor incident to dupe the credulous?
Argument from authority: I have a degree that says I’m an expert in identifying racists, so if I say so, you’re a racist, I need give no argument to prove it.
He literally says the definition of racist at the start of the video. That it's the belief of racial groups being unequal. You just gotta use your brain and your short-term memory buddy. Also, you'd be surprised that this is how philosophical books and texts are formatted. They give you basic premises and weave a definition using them. The end result often looks circular.
When something becomes an ideology, it becomes a circular way of understanding the world, racism is an ideology. I would say that Kendi's circular definitions of racism are recognition of this, and are required to dismantle the ideology from within. He also explains at 22:00 that you have to have a understanding of history to understand racism. This talk is like coming into the middle of a conversation about racism, where the definitions are already known by the audience. Look into chattel slavery, colonialism, eugenics, and early anthropological work to understand what racism is. Or even to American Presidencies to understand and get a feel for the lineage of racist ideology, a good example is Reagan's war on drugs and the prison complex. So, to all these comments about his lack of definition for racism, you're metaphorically walking into the middle of a conversation and with no understanding about what the people are talking about, rather irrationally, conclude that the two talking don't know what they're talking about.
I don't understand how this guy is considered a intellectual. This would fit well in a Monty Python dictionary definition. racism,, racism is racist racism.
@@afkaqualls We should make a chain of just people defining stuff with his logic 🤣 Racism is a racist view with the idea of a racist mindset hoping to infiltrate racist policies. Can someone define what "policies" means?
"Racism I would define it as a collection of racist policies, that lead to racial inequity, that are substantiated by racist ideas"... Ibram X. Kendi In other words: Racism is when you have racist policies. It's both hyper-specific (only applies to policies, thereby excluding violent aggressions such as lynching) and not defining anything at all (the definition relies on the word it is supposed to define to characterize itself). Follow up question: how do you define "racist"?
A lot of people got away with lynching, lack of policies against an act is racist as well. The federal government finally past a bill in 2020 making lynching a hate crime.
@@Qfinesse21 did you miss the point of confusion? He was asked to define racism, and then used the word he was supposedly defining in the definition numerous times amongst pseudo intellectual drivel.
The guy dodges all of his critics. In terms of walking in intellectual circles, that is practically unheard of. Him and Robin DiAngelo are true simpletons and have only gained a voice due to "woke" hysteria.
I consider myself to be a left-leaning social Democrat and I can even see if this looks like Maoism because it punishes diversity of thought and produces conformity of thought. In addition his entire book is based on the fallacy of composition. Brought to you by the people who push the 1619 project because you know corporate America’s woke now. Do you really believe it? Identity politics is poison🤔
Alot of guts to keep these comments up: here goes. 2:00 That is not why people say "I'm not racist". It's a reaction to someone accusing you of ideas, actions, or words that you as an individual do not believe, support, act out, or speak. Similar to someone calling you a liar or thief when the facts of the situation say the opposite. Strike 1. 2:42 "Racist policies uh... yield racial inequalities." Wrong on two accounts. 1)What defines "Racist policy"? You'd think it would be straight from what defines racism but even if this follows, 2) "yields racial inequality" This is an EXTREMELY vague point and, I would argue, is infinitely difficult to determine (objectively using statistics) the latter is a direct result of the former. Strike 2. 3:02 This is an academic foul up and Im paraphrasing: "even inaction, non-support, or non-expression of racism or racist ideas/programs, legislation, etc. makes you a racist." Really? How far down the gutter of toxic ideology do I need to climb to even fathom that idea? So everyone who never called out my skin color to make a joke is still a racist? The majority of a class who watches a kid get called slurs by a bully makes them racists? Im fascinated and somehow also not surprised how snake oil salesmen have made it into the realm of academics now. I don't like these ideas. They're not healthy. They're not productive. And they only promulgate divisive ideas, bigotry, and self-righteous behavior that characterizes those who don't want to take basic responsibility for their own lives and cooperate with people without always examining everyone and everything through a lens of race. Strike 3...
My family is biracial and from my point of view racists are the minority in our country now. Being anti racist does not mean focusing on the flaws of our past as a country. It means embracing and perpetuating the huge strides we've made to make America a better place TOGETHER. This mans efforts would be better served in Africa fighting the mass racism, homophobia, anti-christian, and anti Jewish sentiment that is so prevalent there. There is an actual slave trade there to this day and if you are convicted of being a homosexual in many countries in Africa you are looking at over a decade in prison!
Can't wait to see him on a debate stage. The best way to determine whether or not someone's ideas withstand scrutiny is to have them to defend their ideas against someone opposing it.
Racism is an ism at the end of race. The r is a letter in the English alphabet and it is subsequently followed by other letters in the English alphabet to make a word called racism which is essentially an assortment of letters situated next to each other to spell out the word racism which, in its simplest form describes the ism of race and the race of ism. This should clear things up
Ironically if what these people are saying about "institutional racism" is true then the very concept of black people sitting there on a stage giving a lecture on being "racist" or "non-racist" wouldn't even be possible.
If you honestly don't believe in institutional racism, you are living under a rock. Them being able to have this lecture has nothing to do with the facts of how the system is sophistically oppressing people of color. There is such thing as freedom of speech which means anyone is capable of having a lecture. No one can do anything about that.
People understand that logic chains work forward. You apply an argument to a premise, and you get a conclusion. That conclusion then becomes a premise for other arguments supporting other conclusions. Most people don't stop and think that the logic chains also work backward. We do not examine a lot of premises we use and try to find out if they are really valid or not. We do not work backward and trace back the chain of premises that underpin a lot of the arguments we make and the conclusions we accept. The example I typically give is to talk about logical proofs for the question "Is it reasonable to support a conclusion with evidence?" Most people are surprised to find out that proofs for this exist at all because most of us simply accept that it is reasonable to support conclusions with evidence and never stop to think about it. No one ever explicitly told us that it is a good idea to support conclusions with evidence, we simply accepted this assumption from our culture because we accepted a lot of other conclusions that are based on this assumption. We absorbed this underlying premise by accepting premises and arguments that have logic chains that trace back to this assumption. Simply participating in a society involves accepting a large number of premises that almost no one explicitly talks about. Learning a language involves accepting a lot of other assumptions/premises (for example the word "exist" assumes that time and space are infinite and everywhere, which is why we have difficulty thinking about the beginning of the universe when time and space came into being). As someone who is half white, I have been disturbed to learn that I have to actively and constantly work to analyze my thoughts, what conclusions I accept, etc. and carefully look for the influence of racist premises. If I do not actively fight against it, racist things will slip out even if I do not intend it. Similarly, there is much discussion about "internalized racism" among minorities in America. For example, black jurors are more likely to vote to convict a black defendant than a white defendant. I'm not a neuroscientist, so I'm talking out of my butt here, but I have long struggled with why I have to constantly fight against my own thoughts and why internalized racism plagues people of color. I think these underlying premises that we never discuss could be influencing our conclusions and arguments. We don't notice the underlying premises because we are only looking at arguments and conclusions that are much further down the logic chains.
I believe you are talking about the Scientific Method being applied to an already set conclusion. I could be wrong though. Are you saying that instead of following the logic to get to a conclusion, this can also work in reverse? As in you start with a conclusion, and then ask, why is it the conclusion? Isn't that just proposing a new question? If I were to start with a conclusion such as "The sky is blue". That is a conclusion we as a society have accepted. But if we work in reverse, we could ask "But is it really blue?" or "But why is it blue"? I believe going backwards in logic is just called reinventing the wheel, or in some way restarting the Scientific Method to try and come to a different conclusion. In terms of your last paragraph there, do you think that everyone is a racist? Or that everyone in some way, thinks racist thoughts? Because 99% of the population has no control over their brain in terms of not thinking. We are constantly thinking, ideas are constantly flowing, good ideas and bad ideas are moving in and out of our thoughts all the time. No one is likely immune to this. For example, if I'm walking down the street, I see a stop sign, I think red, then maybe I think people stop, then I think cars, then I see a little boy, then I might think what if car hits little boy and kills him? But then immediately start thinking why did I think that? But then I think, well thats just a thought, moving on! And so on and so on. Point is, is that our thoughts are not what determine us, primarily because we are not mind readers. Just because you know what you are thinking and come to a conclusion about yourself, doesn't mean that others can, therefore it doesn't mean that is what you are. It is our actions that determine what others can think. Look, given we know everyone thinks all sorts of things constantly and we are not in control of this to some extent, does not mean we are racist. If this was the case, then everyone is basically anything. If it was the case that we label ourselves by what we are thinking, it means we are murderers, racists, homophobic, xenophobic etc. And if that is the case, then it would mean there is basically no reason to distinguish who is racist and who is not, if everyone is assumed racist. It's logically incoherent. Your supposed internalized racism is not racism if you are thinking. That makes you human. It's like saying introverts are actually extroverts, they just internalize it. It's totally contradictory. Just my 2 cents.
No one, including Dr. Kendi, seemed to notice his casual use of the "crazy uncle" phrase at the 22:30 mark. Can he do better than continuing that stereotype?
You can see the shame in his eyes when he says "So racism, I would define it, um, as a collection, uh, of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas." (34:20). This is not serious scholarship.
I have no control over policies therefore I’m not a racist! Yes! My racist ideas have never turned into action or inequity, therefore I am not racist! Wowee, I’m absolved! Thank you! /s
Well, I somehow managed to do it in one sitting. But I was at work and now my anxiety went through the roof. You know that almost existencial dread you feel when you're life has been shortened in vain. Why is it that every time I tried to get some insight into wokesness I leave feeling like this? Is as if the real arguments are kept hidden "for members only".
@@LeonardoChavezRivas You are meant to feel this way. There is no concrete underlying definition to any of it. I admit that I am biased, but there is an advantage to using obtuse language. It's meant to confuse outsiders who might want to challenge it. If you never clearly define your intent, it can't be challenged. It's on purpose.
@@tboyer86 racism is the belief in the superiority of certain groups over other groups. The social justice definition is power plus privilege. Which is ridiculous and meaningless.
@@Lurch685 Great...now if you've read any of Dr. Kendi's work you know he doesn't actually buy into the idea that you can only be racist if you have power. Did you know that?
The speaker couldn't properly define racism without saying the word racist in his definition, and it was a question from an acolyte. Imagine what would happen if he ever engaged in debate.
He reminds me of the evangelicals of old. It is just another original sin argument. He redefines terms to justify his false dilemma and false choice narrative. By claiming racism is both action and inaction .his book is not anti racist because he suggests the way to not be racist is to discriminate based on race. His notion of equity is absurd because there isn't even equity in a family. Is he then suggesting that a black household is racist because there is not equity in their home?
Equity is a truly insane goal. And why would it only apply to blacks/poc? The ways to find inequities from person to person are INFINITE. And Kendi's proposal, to discriminate today, against the discriminators of yesterday doesn't even itself out tomorrow.. its just tit for tat in perpetuity. Its preposterous. Considering the push for all this.. CRT.."antiracism"..that there's so much focus and funding coming from the elite/globalists Are we really just going to ignore that there is an agenda? Thats what we should be talking about... not just how Kendi is wrong, or that CRT is toxic.. Its one thing to discuss the implications of racism, discrimination, slavery, white supremacy...we should include these things in civics and history teachings.. but the whole idea of "whiteness" and the blanket "oppressor/oppressed" bs.. there's an agenda behind it. And that's what we need to be talking about...instead of focusing on arguing with these propagandists..
Yea his notion of equity is absurd. This guy actually believes all cultures are equal. Except they aren't. Leaving ethnic considerations aside. The culture in the country of Japan is far superior to anywhere else in the world. Just look at their violent crime rates. It's almost 0. That suggests a culture superior to that in the U.S. where violent crime is much higher occurrence. Kendi is just trying to obfuscate the truth, and he is conflating race and culture.
I like to have an open mind when listening to anyone on any topic, but a person who literally writes that the only solution to past discrimination is current discrimination, and is on record that the only explanation for difference of outcome is "bad rules" as he puts it in his NPR interview, it's hard not to watch this with a jaundiced eye.
"The activism" (and by extension, the sort that Mr. Kendi offers as anti-racism) "is a way for useless people to feel important, even if their activism" (read false gospel) "is counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
From the get-go this is flawed. If one says "I'm not racist" his response is "well, what is a 'not-racist'". Jesus, it's not a noun. If I said to him "I'm hungry" will he say "well, what is a 'hungry'"? These "gotcha" thinking scholars are so draining! But I'm here because we all need to listen to those we don't agree with (as painful as this is)...
@Okiroshi Faith-based arguments, dogmatic approach to arguments, no tolerance for being questioned. These people would find everything in common with a 12th century Catholic cleric.
Ibram X. Kendi was born as Henry Rogers to a father who was a tax accountant and hospital chaplain and a mother who was a business analyst. Both parents are now Methodist ministers. He attended private schools for six years and two universities where he got 3 degrees. X
I am all for progressive thinking I but I listened for an hour and I don’t think he said much but instead spoke in broad generalizations. Definitely may try his book hopefully there are more specific details in it.
So listening and looking but finding nothing, you would like to see more? There isn't anymore because there's nothing but circular arguments and flawed logic. Save your money and time. This is a cult of emptiness.
That's because this issue is the size of a mountain range and the video was the length of an ant. I encourage you to continue your journey of learning about systemic racism if you wish to understand his meanings. Do it for humanity.
@@juliacarr5579 Progressives passed gun control laws to oppress people of color who are disproportionately arrested. Gun laws only began when Democrats got scared because black people were exercising their Second Amendment Rights. Luckily Charlton Heston and the NRA stepped up to oppose this systemic racism. DO THE WORK!
As a white American I've been really frustrated with these feeling of not wanting to be racist, feeling afraid of not just people calling me out on racism (cause I have been even if unintentionally), but of being hated for so many things I feel I had no power over and no opportunity to choose. And a deep frustration of not being able to change anything to get rid of racism in myself or in society. I feel like a lot of the people in these comments could relate to the above feelings in some respect. All that said I'm super grateful to have found this talk. It helped so much define and navigate what I've internalized, how those internalized ideas are corrosive, harmful, and illogical. And also how to start to eradicate them from myself, and hopefully from society at large. For all those in the comments who are here to yell racists or argue over semantics in an effort to disqualify 99% of what he said, maybe don't. I understand feeling uncomfortable and vulnerable in these talks and discussions. But it only gets better when you face it, and start working on improving on it. The path forward for all of us won't start by sticking our heads in the sand. Anywho, I'm sure somebody is going to get really angry by what I wrote, but that's okay.
Please talk with Coleman Hughes!!!! Ibram is bankrolling waaaaayyyyy too much off of his divisive ideas to be humiliated and put against any intellectual rigor. I wouldn't do it either Ibram, but pleeeaaaase have a discussion with Coleman Hughes!!!
Here's where I have a problem with his definition of a racist policy. He thinks that a racist policy is a policy that creates or sustains racial inequity, but let's think about this for a minute. Let's say you have a policy that everyone, regardless of race, sex, class, religion, ethnicity or any other defining factor, can enter any legally permissible profession they choose. Is this a racist policy? I don't think so. It treats everyone as equals, which is consistent with Kendi's defintion of "anti-racist," so how could it be? Now let's say you have two groups, and we'll just call them "Group A" and "Group B" so as to not bring in any baggage associated with any real-world groups. Group A gets to talking, and there gets to be a sense among them that high-paying professions are best because they improve their standard of living, so a high percentage of people in Group A set out to be doctors, lawyers, CEOs, etc. Group B gets to talking and decides that high-paying professions aren't for them because they take too much time away from family and make people lose focus on what's really important to them in pursuit of money, so Group B sets out to become teachers, nurses, mechanics, etc. Years later we look at the two groups and it turns out that Group A is significantly wealthier than Group B, meaning that the end result of the policy was inequity. Does that mean the policy was racist?
Is America the only country in history where you become popular and successful for calling it evil, and also still go your whole life insulated from this fact?
Ibram Kendi: “The only way to undo racism is to consistently identify and describe it" Also Ibram Kendi: *incapable of providing coherent definition of racism*
@@afkaqualls Racism is an ism at the end of race. The r is a letter in the English alphabet and it is subsequently followed by other letters in the English alphabet to make a word called racism which is essentially an assortment of letters situated next to each other to spell out the word racism which, in its simplest form describes the ism of race and the race of ism. This should clear things up
So, what I’m hearing is... it’s more helpful to say, “that’s racist. You’re not racist, that’s racist.” In the way that I’ve learned to say, “that’s harmful (bad), instead do You’re Bad.”?
I don't even do that anymore, because the term "racism" and "racist" mean a white person that isn't genuflecting to this nonsense. When someone says something disparaging, with a broad brush across an entire demographic, pretends to speak for a broad demographic, or bashes with a broad faulty generalizing brush, I just tell them how dumb it is. The man with the long hair on stage pretends he speaks for a entire demographic, and wants you to believe it. He may even believe it himself, and that's what makes him ridiculous.
I agree that is one of useful messages in this talk and is useful. Whatever your definition of racism is, it’s far more productive and accurate to use “racist” as a description of behaviors and actions rather than of people. No one fits into a box bounded by a single word.
Pretty sure he was given a doctorate. Guys like him don't believe in working to achieve personal goals. His books are little more intelligible than what a chimp with a type writer could produce. Oh yea, I said what I said!
@@afkaqualls the belief that a certain or races are superior or inferior to others. It may also but not necessarily include actions based on that belief.
Politeness is not always good. Being polite and not calling Kendi full of stupid and idiotic and circular thought that becomes self referential proof of his own thought ...is not good for society.
The most important and defining moment of this long talk is on _defining racism_, @ 34:00 to 34:50. *_"Racism is a collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated with racist ideas."_* Crowd reaction: silence then followed by polite incredulous laughter of ... yeah sure... once they realized it was a circular definition.
It's not circular. It is providing context for how racism exists - through a system made up of policies that favor mostly white and wealthy people, thereby recreating itself through a white lens on history, movies, education, and through a system that still perpetuates violence against Black peoples due to there being mostly white representation and white policies that neglect to consider the needs of Black lives. The system of racism is not merely a view someone holds or a feeling of hatred against people of color, it's negligence to compensate for the 400 years of slavery and the subsequent poverty, trauma and pain that still exists today in Black communities. Meanwhile (mostly) white people have had the privilege of maintaining assets, owning property through several generations, and benefitting from light skin privileges, such as having the majority of representation of their race in the movie industry, politics, medicine, highrr education and other leadership positions. Being a racist is merely benefitting from this system that is set up to be racist and those who are willing to do the real work to unravel the deeply embedded systems of racist ideals are doing the work of being Anti-racist, but since they still benefit from the system, the system by nature of what it is innately generates racism. You can't really NOT be racist, but if you can open your eyes to what's all around, that prisons have mostly Black and Native populations, that the 13th Ammendment made Black people prisoners instead of slaves, and that Black slaves were freed into poverty that still has a strong effect today.
I laughed so hard at that 😂 What's an apple? It's something that looks like an apple and smells like an apple. These people are seriously making idiocracy look like a documentary. 😂😂
I'm about halfway through, and I'm thinking that Kendi would benefit from more examples or stories that illustrate his point. Most of what he's saying is very generalized, which makes it hard to figure out how his ideas fit into the real world. I'm enjoying the talk though, and I may have to pick up his book and see how he does in that.
I'm about halfway through How To Be an Anti-racist and it is very insightful. I think that the book really expands on the concepts presented in this discussion, which is just an overview. I sought out the discussion to put a face and a voice to his words, and now I'm going back to the book.
Anti-racism sounds to me like a negative in photography. It's racist but in a different way than traditional racism. I still think not being racist is the only way to run a fair society.
"when will we ever learn"... that's a song from "riding in the car car," carpool days, pops when wearing seat belts was a choice. I was born in 1968 right as the strike at SFSU was starting. During my lifetime the forgetting to remember and the remembering to forget seem to have prevailed. Meanwhile some of us never forgot and kept looking for others who were remembering...These amazing moments of remembering to remember we need to keep up and support ... I believe it is not just "deja vu all over again" What was happening in my 20s? The AIDS and crack epidemics, the deepening of disruption and incarceration and sinking of the median wage, tax cuts for the rich due to Neo-liberal policies in the echoes and ossification of COINTELPRO and the arrival of the first Gulf War... Oh, there was a wall that came down and people used pieces of it to try to say that Marxism was dead, and hey, why not feminism too? Nelson Mandela was released from jail and apartheid as it was known there was ended And too many people started reading Ayn Rand as they developed software instead of reading Hannah Arendt ... Maybe that was all a little di$tracting I am so grateful for my education and the people who remembered and spoke up and have been speaking up all along and grateful for my local listener sponsored radio. Hopefully it is encouraging and not a cooptation or looking good in the moment that an old men'$ club like Aspen is sponsoring such a talk.
Nothing he stated would pass the muster of a community college course on logic. Such is what happens when individuals with SAT scores just north of 1,000 become "public intellectuals."
His definition of racist is purposely vague, it leaves him open to call anyone a racist at anytime for any reason. It's part of the strategy of an abuser to leave the abused in a state of confusion and always questioning.
Circular reasoning. 1) Racism: "a collection of racist policies leading to racial inequity substantiated by racist ideas." 2) Glorpinzork: "a collection of glorpinzork policies leading to glorpinzork inequity substantiated by glorpinzork ideas." The first example he seems to be content with, the second I would contend he would ask for a another attempt to define it. Both leave the listener equally none the wiser on what the term means. I haven't heard a person so quick to comment how poorly a term is defined, only to do a far worse job than the average person's attempt. What's worse is his refusal to debate anyone with an opposing view. He talks with such certainty on a poorly formed argument to an already-converted audience and interviewer getting softball questions with no scrutiny. Only someone who is convinced they're speaking the truth would invite the pushback, but he doesn't have the courage of conviction to do this - even with someone as courteous and well-reasoned as Coleman Hughes.
This guy talks in circles. Saying that racism is supported by racist policies and upheld and supported by racist people and then says if you don't do anything about what he deems racist policies, you too are a racist through the lens of his "anti-racist" ideology. In other words, you either support me or you're a racist and I must stamp you out through "anti-racist" rhetoric. He posits that "truth" is in the eye of the beholder and is whatever he interprets as such, a self-policing society built on the premises of race and guilt. So, we can never solve anything because people like him who spread this VERY open ended and vague philosophy that are just blanket statements, keep moving the goal post on what racism is since anybody and everybody can interpret and classify anything and everything racist. Moreover, it is evidence enough that this guy has never put his ideas to the test in a healthy debate. Colman Hughes and John McWhorter wanted to debate him and Kendi refused, and this is a little of what McWhorter said about Kendi in response: "This kind of training is why Kendi’s response to criticism is irritation. “How can anybody not agree with my scholarship?”, he all but says straight out…He is irritated at real questions because he has had no experience with actual academic give and take. He likes referring to his work as “my scholarship,” for example, apparently thinking of “scholarship” as unquestionable: you just gather and present facts and you have achieved “scholarship” immune to question. Naturally, then, he assumes that criticism can only come from someone who just wants to give him trouble…[H]e complains that his critics are dissing views he never expressed - genuinely unaware that clarification is a major part of defending one’s ideas (and often altering them). He openly says he won’t debate Coleman Hughes because it would entail denying that he meant this or that - genuinely unaware that this is much of what debate consists of."
In your presentation, did you demonstrate prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group?
@@TagSpamCop Well I guess that depends on whether he himself understands just how poorly constructed his arguments are. My suspicion is that he is blissfully unaware.
Random person: *_Hey Henry, how would you define Racism?_* Henry X. Rogers: *_”So Racism, I would define it as a collection of Racist policies that lead to Racial inequity that are substantiated by Racist ideas.”_* _______________________________ This individual teaches things. This person is a Ph.D., Director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University. It appears, he’s still researching the term (hint: Merriam-Webster).
The fact that the comments are enabled is pretty amazing.
I noticed that.
Especially because the guy's a joke.
@@randominternetguy1062 LOL
@@randominternetguy1062 I am sure it is now after he sold enough books to schools and people who needed gag gifts
The left usually prefers the comfort of same opinions so I'm surprised too
“I would define a circle as a collection of circular lines that lead to circular shapes that are formed by circular motions.”
Yesss.....
Oh that’s a good one. I think someone should count how many times that this a-hole said the word racist, it’s got to be record. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone ever say the word racist so many times in my life.
President Lincoln asked a jury, “If you call a dogs leg a tail, how many legs does a dog have? “
The jury replied, “ 5 “
President Lincoln answered, “ No. The correct answer is four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.”
What’s the moral? A tail is still a tale, it can never be a leg no matter what you change it’s name to.”
"I would define my excellence as excellence achieved by being excellent in a realm of tremendous excellence at a high level of outstanding excellence."
This is fun. Keep it going!
Anyone notice how during the question period, when asked what the definition of racism is, Kendi used the term racist in the definition of racism? That's a circular definition, which is ironic when it's coming from a guy who criticizes people who can't define the term 'racism'.
I did notice that, and was a little disappointed that he did not delve deeper into the definition. Keep in mind that the question segment is very short, therefore time is limited. He did not want to go back to re-difining racism/racist as he already did during his talk. Not making an excuse for him, but he did defiine exactly what racism is during the conversation. It would have been good to hear it in closing as well. I agree that he should have summarized his definition of racism without using the word racist.
@@bdubsmusclepakk No, the reason he was asked that question in the first place is because he didn't actually give a definition of the term.
Instead, he created a strawman definition of the term that he thinks "racists" use, which he then knocked down, as you do with strawmen.
It isn't hard to define what racism is. I could define it very quickly and I am by no means an expert in racial issues.
His problem is that he's twisting what it means to be racist, which is why he's having such as hard time giving a clear, succinct definition, which is just so ironic in so many ways.
@@wetperspectives9612 How would you define it?
@@quelquely I'd define racism as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed towards a person or people based on their particular race.
How would you define it?
Ok so, I resume what this guy say : for thoses people, a racist is someone who's white.
what a step forward for humanity ...
Question: what is water?
Kendi: water is a collection of watery aqueous elements which occur wherever there is watery liquid in the sense that water is understood
The best part is that in the lecture, he emphasizes that in order to properly debate racism, you have to agree on a definition, and he clearly hasn’t put ANY thought into that definition
LOL
More importantly, you can't be just dry. You are either wet or you are anti-wet. If you aren't anti-wet in a mostly more-or-less wet policy world then you are not dry.
Yes!!!! Finally a woke ass video without the comments being disabled
lol right?
This guy is a real life Chauncey Gardner but everyone is afraid to call him an idiot because they don't want to be called racist.
Idiophobic?
Theres a lot of Chauncey 's out there.
Define racism.
It’s truly baffling that no one calls him out on his nonsense . There’s so much wrong with what he says
@@billsimms2511 did you read the book? What part is nonsense ?
All his arguments are circular - they don't really offer any proof of what he is implicating - no wonder he won't debate Coleman Hughes.
When he defined racism, I busted out laughing it was so circular. I had to rewind it to see if he was serious
@Michele Jansen - to me that means you're not even trying to self improve. The country is at a crossroads and here you are making excuses 🤔
What is a debate going to prove?
@@Mr._Moderate That his point of view, his theories can hold up to scrutiny ? That he can defend his claims? This man should be allowed to have the impact he's having, and we should just blindly follow his theories that he has never demonstrated an ability to defend? You're kidding right?
@@michelejansen5790 These people don't think facts/logic/reality matter. They think such things as requiring proof are racist constructs. There is no helping them and no way by which you can even meaningfully engage with them.
This dude couldn’t even define racism. What a shocker!
he is a living example of it
The very definition of racism according to this dude: ua-cam.com/video/TzuOlyyQlug/v-deo.html
@@DrDarkUA-cam Yep, exactly. He couldn’t lol
@@NervousDisordo "Butter is a collection of butter policies, that lead to butter inequity, that are substantiated in butter ideas".
So where are these "butter policies"? Id like to see the professor give us some examples.
@@DrDarkUA-cam Yeah, but seriously his definition caused this reaction from me: ua-cam.com/video/5hfYJsQAhl0/v-deo.html
Coleman Hughes
can only wish
Coleman Hughes!
... Is a confused individual
I love how you conservatives always tout these tokens (Candace Owens is one of them)
@@Thundernymph Candace Owens and Coleman Hughes have very little in common and to strip away those differences and conflate the two because they happen to have a similar complexion is dare I say it, rather racist.
I'd love to hear this fellah speaking to a black "working class" audience about transgender issues. I'd also love to see him debate Coleman Hughes.
Coleman Hughes!
@@nateofthesouth Ha! Mr Hughes has taken up my suggestion and laid down the challenge but received no answer!
Shelby Steele would be a better person for him to debate
Many don't understand the issue, or care to, sadly, but they're nonetheless important because all BLACK LIVES MATTER.
@@SpaceLikeAwareness You like those Black outliers...me too...and I disagree with much of what they have to offer the Native Black American community. THOSE PEOPLE are 'beloved' in the White American Community, which is why most NBAs are suspicious of them. Shelby gives me the heebie-geebies though...such a creepy face.
Eight Simple Rules to Being an Antiracist
1) Stop assuming certain people cannot be racist
2) Stop telling people they are inherent victims
3) Stop telling people they owe you something
4) Stop redefining the word "racist/racism"
5) Stop assuming when there is a racist confrontation, one group is inherent antagonist and the other inherent innocent victim
6) Stop assuming every time you do not get what you want, it's because of racism
7) Stop demanding "an honest discussion about race" but never listen to opposition
8) Stop profiting from racism via disingenuously writing books or TV programs about it
Onboard with this,
Wrong!
9) Stop saying other people are privileged when they lose their jobs and careers for uttering a certain word you say all the time or if they offend you in a way you think is racist.
1 rule to being anti racist. Stop listening to this guy
@@MeowthGamer19 Really...?😜
The definition of an apple according to Ibram X. Kendo: “An apple is an apple that grows on an apple tree.”
This certainly hasn't aged well !😅 The most recent chapter: Boston University announced an official investigation into his "Center for Antiracist Research" which hoovered over $40 million yet produced virtually no research, and then he laid off nearly half of his employees, who accordingly accused him of mismanaging funds, failing to deliver key projects, and mistreating his team.
And I'm not even a conservative, just someone with eyes wide open who isn't afraid to admit that I was wrong.
Thats genius... hes trolling
@@dipf7705 who's trolling?
@@eih-p7220 center for anti racial research company guy, if he pulled that off he isnt as dumb as he sounds
"Racism is not dead, but it is on life support - kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as "racists." Thomas Sowell
Indeed!! Race hustlers like HENRY ROGERS here wouldn't have the means to pay their bills if fake racial oppression wasn't kept on life support.
@RCB DOMINION - please explain:
1. how is racism on life support?
2. Who besides Sowell is making this declaration?
3. When did racism start going on life support?
@@stephanelahens363 are there any whites that are race hustlers? 🤔
@@Mr._Moderate How is racism on life support? Pretty clear that the country is less racist now compared to the past. The fact that a black man named Barak was elected President in 2009 should tell us something. Was it white guilt that drove white America to elect a him? And if so, did this white guilt somehow disappear after 2016 and white people decided to return to their racist roots? Who besides Sowell is making this declaration? Odd question. I have no idea. And why would the answer to that be relevant? If nobody else is making this declaration, does that make the declaration incorrect? When did racism start going on life support? I would imagine the process began in the 70's with the Generation-X crew.
@@123491622
1. When something is on "life support" it means that it is barely holding on to life. You FAILED to prove that racism is on life support
2. Although racism has lessened over the decades you seem to intimate that racism is not within policy but is strictly men in white sheets and cross-burnings. Incorrect
.3. Obama won the United States presidency twice with only 43% of the white vote in 2008, and 39% of the white vote in 2012. 💁
4. Sowell is a pandering buffoon to make such a claim 🤦
Instead of listening to this guy, listen to Thomas Sowell
I love how this is the top comment. Everyone in America should know Thomas Sowell. Instead everyone knows this guys name instead. Ibram Kendi sounds like a disgruntled woke feminist complaining about men because she had a bad experience with her ex boyfriend.
Thomas Sowell
I should really read Thomas Sowell because everytime I've watched videos or interviews of him I've walked away kinda of disappointed with rather pedestrian conservative analysis, nothing really outlandish but nothing to be too excited either. For the record I find Ibram X Kendi's ideas appaling so it's not a case of blind partisanship.
@@helenlundeberg examples please.
I really try to understand the justification of policies i disagree with. Almost every time i watch a video advocating for "anti-racist" ideation it comes to group identity and the individual is unambiguously disposable.
Glenn Loury: Kendi is an academic lightweight
I like Mr. Loury, but I didn't like his and Mr. McWhorter's approach in Mr. Kendi. I am fully on their side, but dragging down one another isn't the right way (even when Mr. Kendi was the one, who started it). I would appreciate a big debate on this topic between them.
He's what passes for intellect among blacks, which basically entails repeating something over and over in hopes of shaming those who don't agree. It is typically devoid of substance and relies on ad hominem attacks
@@mco7478 Yeah but Kendi won't do it because he's a lightweight and a star of the chattering classes.
He's a lightweight John, he's a lightweight! - Glenn Loury
@@tchwiss "Passes as intellect amongst blacks". Which blacks exactly? Many black people oppose Kendi. Critical theorists and liberals are the ones who support X kendi. Perhaps, don't put us all in the same monolith.
Listening to this guy's logic is like watching a gerbil on a treadmill...
Define racism.
@@afkaqualls I'm curious what do you think racist means
He seems like a well intentioned guy but completely lacks linear thinking skills.
But I fully understand why "objective, linear thinking" was declared to be symptom of whiteness.
@@michaelitsol If he's well-intentioned, then he's an utter moron because his ideology does nothing but cause pain and division.
@@fuckamericanidiot I tend to agree - he does appear to be a bit slow.
So a racist is someone who supports racist ideas and an anti-racist is someone who supports anti-racist ideas. Wow. Thanks for that brilliant explanation. I can’t believe entire academic institutions are buying into this guy.
Define racism.
It takes a "genius" to define a word with that word.
He has recently bought a 3 million dollar house based on this hussle, so maybe we are the idiots now. I mean the guy is a moron, barely capable of basic comprehension, but he is doing well!
Truly one of the greatest race hustlers of this age.
@@afkaquallsKendi told you. Racist practice racism. There.
This made my head hurt. A guy trying to look smart and using circular arguments. I don’t even want to see him debate with Coleman Hughes. I have a strong hunch it would be a waste of Hughes’ time.
He's an eloquent sounding buffoon, all to the applause of morons.
@@adelkaderchourafi5369 There was a time when being racist was penalized. It is not now that way. It is open season if you are the wrong race. Insulting that race or skin color comes without penalty or risk of any kind. The fact that it carries no risk means that it is not brave to do it. They are not risking anything when they say it, and they're not helping anyone when they do it. It would be like being in Germany in 1940 and insulting the entire Jewish race, or being in Palestine today and insulting Israelis as an entire demographic. They are certain we do not spot their logical fallacy of faulty generalization.
@@troy3456789 look at the sketch of kevin hart, when he say "you white people, you are so white" and other black celebrities.
It's normal today to insult white people, ben when it's others, it racism ... this world is crazy.
@@adelkaderchourafi5369 "progressives" LOVE to employ logical fallacies, because they know logic doesn't work to support their ideas. Logic and critical thinking will make the world a better place of course. Anyone that employs generalization about an entire racial demographic, genders, religious, or political demographic is also trying to tell you they don't have a clue. Women that say "We women want this" or "We women do not want that"? (something commonly said by women that talk in those ways), need to be completely ignored.White people that speak for all white people, black people that believe they speak for black people as a whole? All are sounding as stupid as they can possibly be. Yes, criminals and psychopaths tend to have a negative experience around other people, and so do paranoid racists!
This man clearly lessons the value of the PhD. Degree!
I listened to Daryl Davis. He doesn’t come out and say, how to be an anti racist. He does share his own experience. How to be a human being.
Omgggg love that
THAT is the uniting principle. Human being. If you lead with your identity it limits your uniting capacity.
Well I think that racism is more than not being a KKK member
Because being an "anti-racist" (at least by Kendi's definition) and being a good human being are exact opposites.
Now, finally....more people are learning the history of Identity Politics, from the Frankfurt School through Foucault and Derrida.
And are rejecting it as a parasitic attack on thousands of years of human progress and enlightenment.
Frankfurt School, Foucault, Derrida were certainly staunchly opposed to identity politics.
Define racism.
I can deal with Foucault--his explication of the panopticon is very intelligent, and particularly germane to today's conversations about wokeness. All social media are a panopticon.
I waited the whole conversation for his definition of racism, to really get behind this way of thinking and arguing, and was extremely thankful for the first question to be exactly about that. And then, the "definition" of racism uses the word "racism" in itself. I can't describe my disappointment with that answer. As somebody already commented: that ist called circular reasoning and having watched a conversion with Coleman Hughes, that really hurt.
The question is why does Boston University and parents of students who attend Boston U. charge and pay to get stupid? Even the leftist crowd laughed at his definition thinking he was joking. This is mindless.
So defined racism as a collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas. So yeah, he didn't use the word "racism" to define "racism". He used the word "racist" to define "racism". Those are two different words. Throughout the lecture he defined what he meant by racist policies, racist inequality, and racist ideas. Racist policies are policies that create racial inequity. Racial inequity is when there is inequality that is experienced through racial groups. Racist ideas are ideas that suggest that the racists are inherently unequal, that one race is superior to another race. So you're incorrect that he used the same term to define itself.
@@tboyer86 I understand what you mean, yet, his definition does lack of a clear description of what he thinks is racist. I think he is very able of phrasing nice explanations of what he thinks to be important and true. But that makes it not a good definition.
If I would ask you to explain any *ism to me, I would like you to use words that describe this *ism without using the same word stem.
Just like "cannibalism is a collection of cannibalistic policies that lead to cannibalistic inequity that are substantiated by cannibalistic ideas" doesn't mean anything to somebody who doesn't know what cannibalism is.
The problem is: using "racist" or "racism" in a debate lets everybody use their own definition of these words but doesn't clarify the exact meaning. But only if all participating debaters know, what the definition in the minds of the other debaters is, there can be a real conclusion and they can cater to the others arguments.
I don't understand what is unclear about his definitions. He made it pretty clear that racist ultimately consider the races as unequal and that anti-racists consider the different racial groups as equal. So that when a racist sees a racial inequity they will say the problem is the people, that there is something wrong with them inherently while an anti-racist would argue that no it's not the people, it's policies that have created these inequities. What is so difficult to understand about that?
@@tboyer86 So, a racist is somebody who believes in different races and therefore bases their view on other people on this misconception.
You see, that's not what I hear. But that would be a more sensible explanation of racism as I understand it.
Do I get it right at least, that he just defines racism as kind of a "political" system rather than a flaw of single human beings?
Maybe I missed out on his examples of racist policies and explicit inequity in the laws...
His book really should be titled `How I justify being a racist’.
I’m not sure if he’s a scam artist or a true believer in the worst sense.
I hope he discovers liberalism at some point.
Much love for everyone, I hope you’re having a good day.
Sincerely,
Boden
For being an advocate of anti-racism, this cat Ibram X. Kendi is so damn racist and divisive. It's funny that he doesn't see it, but I do.
It makes sense as anti-racism is defined as justifiable racism within critical race theory. The whole thing is a sick revenge fantasy.
Kendi is a drooling idiot.
Respect to anyone that was able to finnish watching this nonsense.
I'm barely hanging on after 11 minutes. Outrageous stuff.
Strange! Why do we enjoy the cringe factor so much?
@@pheemer well, that, but also trying to find a scrap of something I can relate to.
@@iankclark The only reason I watch videos like this is just to be certain, in a world of lies and uncertainty, that, yes, this is definitely WRONG. 100%. Maybe there's hope that I will, someday, find something that's RIGHT.
I'm sure the people of Finland adore you 🇫🇮
I dispise the twisting of language he engages in. Look at where it gets us: anti-Anti-racism is the new anti-racism.
Define racism.
The “Doctor” here was asked to define racism and he said “I would define racism as system of racist policies that are substantiated by racist practices”. He used the word he was asked to define in the definition itself. 😂 And infinite loop. This is the guy the US military Joint Chiefs of Staff are reading and making servicemen read.
....yeah....how else will our brave soldiers defeat the tyranny of racism....with guns?! Hah!🤡 You simpleton!😊
Spot on, all racist policies he spoke on are long gone. What he's really saying in orwellian doublespeak is. Hey if your not white we want policies that give you a leg up on whites in the name of equality. Like quotas , lower test standards and preferential treatment. The list goes on and on. They want a better outcome for their people but don't wanna assimilate to make that happen
He is a philosopher for Woke people. It doesn't need logic.
How many service members have been forced to read this guy?
@@thunkjunk Being a philosopher requires logic.
What you're really trying to say is that "I disagree with him so his philosophy must be illogical".
“Truth is central”
Truth is a collection of true policies that leads to truth that is substantiated by true ideas
A lie is a distortion of the truth - 2+2=5?
I think the idea of "defining your terms" is really important. Calling someone a racist won't have the potential for change that asking someone to define what racism means.
maybe that's because the word "racism" holds some very negative, reputation-destroying connotations.
Great point! There are intra-race racists, e.g., well to do whites deploring poor whites, etc (this happens with black folks too). My ancestry is Irish, and for those who do not know it, they were called "white niggers" upon their taking up residence in the U.S. and "regular" white folks were told to stay away from them. All of us, no matter the race, nationality, etc. need to realize a VERY IMPORTANT, and VERY EASY THING: We are ALL humans, worthy of respect, and decency.
By
@@jimgallagher5902 "... all of us, no matter the race, nationality etc need to realize it's very important and a VERY EASY THING: we are all human, worthy of respect and decency".
Me: the people that need to practice this "VERY EASY THING" are white people because white people are the only ones that I see not treating people with decency, worthiness and respect i.e., calling cops on black ppl because they won't show them where they live in an apartment that they live in, calling the police on black people for barbecuing in the park, hoping the cops will come and kill them ( Central Park lying Karen), to name a few GOH. I don't see black and brown people doing this two other people
On May 25 a black man was killed in what looked like a very flawed arrest. Now, 2 months down the road, many persons (a lot of them white) seem to have "discovered" a deep and serious oppression they didn't discern on May 24. This all seems very odd. Is it possible the Left is using that minor incident to dupe the credulous?
Argument from authority: I have a degree that says I’m an expert in identifying racists, so if I say so, you’re a racist, I need give no argument to prove it.
Please debate Coleman Hughes.
why? its so much more profitable to just spout nonsense to your disciples who won't question it instead of being challenged and looking like an idiot.
His circular definition of racism is hilarious. Everyone in the room knows its hilarious, no one has the chops to call him out.
He literally says the definition of racist at the start of the video. That it's the belief of racial groups being unequal. You just gotta use your brain and your short-term memory buddy.
Also, you'd be surprised that this is how philosophical books and texts are formatted. They give you basic premises and weave a definition using them. The end result often looks circular.
When something becomes an ideology, it becomes a circular way of understanding the world, racism is an ideology. I would say that Kendi's circular definitions of racism are recognition of this, and are required to dismantle the ideology from within.
He also explains at 22:00 that you have to have a understanding of history to understand racism. This talk is like coming into the middle of a conversation about racism, where the definitions are already known by the audience. Look into chattel slavery, colonialism, eugenics, and early anthropological work to understand what racism is. Or even to American Presidencies to understand and get a feel for the lineage of racist ideology, a good example is Reagan's war on drugs and the prison complex.
So, to all these comments about his lack of definition for racism, you're metaphorically walking into the middle of a conversation and with no understanding about what the people are talking about, rather irrationally, conclude that the two talking don't know what they're talking about.
Or, people are just over the tedium of a tedious ideology.
@@disf5178 Not everything has to be convenient or immediately accessible to everyone.
@@Rhyotion not everything needs to be worth paying attention to.
He has this smile on his face that says "Look, I know what I am saying is all bullshit----but I AM GETTING PAID"!!!
This guy is laughing at all "woke" Americans on the way to the bank
Define racism.
Yes he is
Honestly... I get the feeling that he actually believes what he is saying...
@@ericm6415 Lol. Everything that he is saying is factual so, he should believe everything that he's saying.
Hahaha well said.
I don't understand how this guy is considered a intellectual. This would fit well in a Monty Python dictionary definition.
racism,, racism is racist racism.
he is NOT considered one
Define racism.
@@afkaqualls We should make a chain of just people defining stuff with his logic 🤣
Racism is a racist view with the idea of a racist mindset hoping to infiltrate racist policies.
Can someone define what "policies" means?
"We've had racial progress, but it's simultaneously the case that we've had racist progress."
???
In other words, we had no progress at all. The two things cancel each other.
Define racism.
@@christianjocson5509 How do you know those two things are equal to one another? Is that how you think things are? In perfect balance? If so, show us.
"Racism I would define it as a collection of racist policies, that lead to racial inequity, that are substantiated by racist ideas"...
Ibram X. Kendi
In other words: Racism is when you have racist policies.
It's both hyper-specific (only applies to policies, thereby excluding violent aggressions such as lynching) and not defining anything at all (the definition relies on the word it is supposed to define to characterize itself).
Follow up question: how do you define "racist"?
Do you have a time stamp for that line? I'm not looking to waste an hour listening to this charlatan.
A lot of people got away with lynching, lack of policies against an act is racist as well. The federal government finally past a bill in 2020 making lynching a hate crime.
@@lIlIllIIII Jump to 34:31.
@@Qfinesse21 did you miss the point of confusion? He was asked to define racism, and then used the word he was supposedly defining in the definition numerous times amongst pseudo intellectual drivel.
The guy dodges all of his critics. In terms of walking in intellectual circles, that is practically unheard of. Him and Robin DiAngelo are true simpletons and have only gained a voice due to "woke" hysteria.
I consider myself to be a left-leaning social Democrat and I can even see if this looks like Maoism because it punishes diversity of thought and produces conformity of thought. In addition his entire book is based on the fallacy of composition. Brought to you by the people who push the 1619 project because you know corporate America’s woke now. Do you really believe it? Identity politics is poison🤔
Well said
You aren't a social democrat. Now define racism.
Yes corporate America is woke and use the policy's of the gov to divide and conquer black and white Americans for their business
I'm a moderate conservative and am surprised to hear this. Have a blessed day!😃👍
@@ivanhenderson31 not all of us are crazy or blindly ideological. 👍🏻
Alot of guts to keep these comments up: here goes.
2:00 That is not why people say "I'm not racist". It's a reaction to someone accusing you of ideas, actions, or words that you as an individual do not believe, support, act out, or speak. Similar to someone calling you a liar or thief when the facts of the situation say the opposite. Strike 1.
2:42 "Racist policies uh... yield racial inequalities." Wrong on two accounts. 1)What defines "Racist policy"? You'd think it would be straight from what defines racism but even if this follows, 2) "yields racial inequality" This is an EXTREMELY vague point and, I would argue, is infinitely difficult to determine (objectively using statistics) the latter is a direct result of the former. Strike 2.
3:02 This is an academic foul up and Im paraphrasing: "even inaction, non-support, or non-expression of racism or racist ideas/programs, legislation, etc. makes you a racist."
Really? How far down the gutter of toxic ideology do I need to climb to even fathom that idea? So everyone who never called out my skin color to make a joke is still a racist? The majority of a class who watches a kid get called slurs by a bully makes them racists?
Im fascinated and somehow also not surprised how snake oil salesmen have made it into the realm of academics now. I don't like these ideas. They're not healthy. They're not productive. And they only promulgate divisive ideas, bigotry, and self-righteous behavior that characterizes those who don't want to take basic responsibility for their own lives and cooperate with people without always examining everyone and everything through a lens of race. Strike 3...
My family is biracial and from my point of view racists are the minority in our country now. Being anti racist does not mean focusing on the flaws of our past as a country. It means embracing and perpetuating the huge strides we've made to make America a better place TOGETHER. This mans efforts would be better served in Africa fighting the mass racism, homophobia, anti-christian, and anti Jewish sentiment that is so prevalent there. There is an actual slave trade there to this day and if you are convicted of being a homosexual in many countries in Africa you are looking at over a decade in prison!
Racist!
Can't wait to see him on a debate stage. The best way to determine whether or not someone's ideas withstand scrutiny is to have them to defend their ideas against someone opposing it.
Racism is an ism at the end of race. The r is a letter in the English alphabet and it is subsequently followed by other letters in the English alphabet to make a word called racism which is essentially an assortment of letters situated next to each other to spell out the word racism which, in its simplest form describes the ism of race and the race of ism.
This should clear things up
Underrated😅
Ironically if what these people are saying about "institutional racism" is true then the very concept of black people sitting there on a stage giving a lecture on being "racist" or "non-racist" wouldn't even be possible.
If you honestly don't believe in institutional racism, you are living under a rock. Them being able to have this lecture has nothing to do with the facts of how the system is sophistically oppressing people of color. There is such thing as freedom of speech which means anyone is capable of having a lecture. No one can do anything about that.
People understand that logic chains work forward. You apply an argument to a premise, and you get a conclusion. That conclusion then becomes a premise for other arguments supporting other conclusions. Most people don't stop and think that the logic chains also work backward. We do not examine a lot of premises we use and try to find out if they are really valid or not. We do not work backward and trace back the chain of premises that underpin a lot of the arguments we make and the conclusions we accept.
The example I typically give is to talk about logical proofs for the question "Is it reasonable to support a conclusion with evidence?" Most people are surprised to find out that proofs for this exist at all because most of us simply accept that it is reasonable to support conclusions with evidence and never stop to think about it. No one ever explicitly told us that it is a good idea to support conclusions with evidence, we simply accepted this assumption from our culture because we accepted a lot of other conclusions that are based on this assumption. We absorbed this underlying premise by accepting premises and arguments that have logic chains that trace back to this assumption.
Simply participating in a society involves accepting a large number of premises that almost no one explicitly talks about. Learning a language involves accepting a lot of other assumptions/premises (for example the word "exist" assumes that time and space are infinite and everywhere, which is why we have difficulty thinking about the beginning of the universe when time and space came into being).
As someone who is half white, I have been disturbed to learn that I have to actively and constantly work to analyze my thoughts, what conclusions I accept, etc. and carefully look for the influence of racist premises. If I do not actively fight against it, racist things will slip out even if I do not intend it.
Similarly, there is much discussion about "internalized racism" among minorities in America. For example, black jurors are more likely to vote to convict a black defendant than a white defendant.
I'm not a neuroscientist, so I'm talking out of my butt here, but I have long struggled with why I have to constantly fight against my own thoughts and why internalized racism plagues people of color. I think these underlying premises that we never discuss could be influencing our conclusions and arguments. We don't notice the underlying premises because we are only looking at arguments and conclusions that are much further down the logic chains.
I believe you are talking about the Scientific Method being applied to an already set conclusion. I could be wrong though. Are you saying that instead of following the logic to get to a conclusion, this can also work in reverse? As in you start with a conclusion, and then ask, why is it the conclusion? Isn't that just proposing a new question? If I were to start with a conclusion such as "The sky is blue". That is a conclusion we as a society have accepted. But if we work in reverse, we could ask "But is it really blue?" or "But why is it blue"? I believe going backwards in logic is just called reinventing the wheel, or in some way restarting the Scientific Method to try and come to a different conclusion.
In terms of your last paragraph there, do you think that everyone is a racist? Or that everyone in some way, thinks racist thoughts? Because 99% of the population has no control over their brain in terms of not thinking. We are constantly thinking, ideas are constantly flowing, good ideas and bad ideas are moving in and out of our thoughts all the time. No one is likely immune to this.
For example, if I'm walking down the street, I see a stop sign, I think red, then maybe I think people stop, then I think cars, then I see a little boy, then I might think what if car hits little boy and kills him? But then immediately start thinking why did I think that? But then I think, well thats just a thought, moving on! And so on and so on.
Point is, is that our thoughts are not what determine us, primarily because we are not mind readers. Just because you know what you are thinking and come to a conclusion about yourself, doesn't mean that others can, therefore it doesn't mean that is what you are. It is our actions that determine what others can think. Look, given we know everyone thinks all sorts of things constantly and we are not in control of this to some extent, does not mean we are racist. If this was the case, then everyone is basically anything. If it was the case that we label ourselves by what we are thinking, it means we are murderers, racists, homophobic, xenophobic etc. And if that is the case, then it would mean there is basically no reason to distinguish who is racist and who is not, if everyone is assumed racist. It's logically incoherent.
Your supposed internalized racism is not racism if you are thinking. That makes you human. It's like saying introverts are actually extroverts, they just internalize it. It's totally contradictory. Just my 2 cents.
No one, including Dr. Kendi, seemed to notice his casual use of the "crazy uncle" phrase at the 22:30 mark. Can he do better than continuing that stereotype?
I noticed that. And if it's only crazy uncles then do we really have a problem?
You can see the shame in his eyes when he says "So racism, I would define it, um, as a collection, uh, of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas." (34:20).
This is not serious scholarship.
I have no control over policies therefore I’m not a racist! Yes! My racist ideas have never turned into action or inequity, therefore I am not racist! Wowee, I’m absolved! Thank you! /s
I’m committed to listening to this but I’m needing to do it in short intervals
OMG... Me too! I just can't take the insanity... My English teacher told me to "Climb down the Abstract - Concrete ladder" when choosing words...
Well, I somehow managed to do it in one sitting. But I was at work and now my anxiety went through the roof. You know that almost existencial dread you feel when you're life has been shortened in vain. Why is it that every time I tried to get some insight into wokesness I leave feeling like this? Is as if the real arguments are kept hidden "for members only".
@@LeonardoChavezRivas You are meant to feel this way. There is no concrete underlying definition to any of it. I admit that I am biased, but there is an advantage to using obtuse language. It's meant to confuse outsiders who might want to challenge it. If you never clearly define your intent, it can't be challenged. It's on purpose.
Lmao Im struggling through my first sitting right now.
Why bother?
Coleman hughes and john mcwhorter have some great rebuttals to his central points.
@Fleece Johnson Same lol
And those are?
coleman hughes is argh so missing the point , typical right wing talking points
Their lame rebuttals bubba
@@ricebowl3 he's liberal, but okay
Came here for the comment section.. wasnt disappointed.
Simple: don’t be racist. And by racist, I mean the actual definition of racist, not the social justice definition. Because I live in the real world.
Okay so what is your definition of racism then and how does it differ from the quote unquote social justice definition
@@tboyer86 racism is the belief in the superiority of certain groups over other groups.
The social justice definition is power plus privilege. Which is ridiculous and meaningless.
@@Lurch685 Great...now if you've read any of Dr. Kendi's work you know he doesn't actually buy into the idea that you can only be racist if you have power. Did you know that?
@@tboyer86 it’s difficult to, because he’s so self contradictory and slimy.
@@Lurch685 Oh I see, when you cant use evidence or logic to discredit his arguments you just rely on personal attacks.
The speaker couldn't properly define racism without saying the word racist in his definition, and it was a question from an acolyte. Imagine what would happen if he ever engaged in debate.
These comments are heartening in terms of intellectual sanity. 👍
I want him to define race
It would be something like- “Race is a group, or ‘race’, if you will, that is defined as a race of people who are members of a race”
"Race is a racial term to describe a racial group in a racist context based on race principles defining ones race."
These comments are gold😂😂😂
This guy is a racist and black men like him put black people down.
keep redefining racism, and watch it grow
He reminds me of the evangelicals of old. It is just another original sin argument. He redefines terms to justify his false dilemma and false choice narrative. By claiming racism is both action and inaction .his book is not anti racist because he suggests the way to not be racist is to discriminate based on race. His notion of equity is absurd because there isn't even equity in a family. Is he then suggesting that a black household is racist because there is not equity in their home?
Amen!
Equity is a truly insane goal. And why would it only apply to blacks/poc? The ways to find inequities from person to person are INFINITE. And Kendi's proposal, to discriminate today, against the discriminators of yesterday doesn't even itself out tomorrow.. its just tit for tat in perpetuity. Its preposterous.
Considering the push for all this.. CRT.."antiracism"..that there's so much focus and funding coming from the elite/globalists
Are we really just going to ignore that there is an agenda? Thats what we should be talking about... not just how Kendi is wrong, or that CRT is toxic..
Its one thing to discuss the implications of racism, discrimination, slavery, white supremacy...we should include these things in civics and history teachings.. but the whole idea of "whiteness" and the blanket "oppressor/oppressed" bs.. there's an agenda behind it. And that's what we need to be talking about...instead of focusing on arguing with these propagandists..
Define racism.
Yea his notion of equity is absurd. This guy actually believes all cultures are equal. Except they aren't. Leaving ethnic considerations aside. The culture in the country of Japan is far superior to anywhere else in the world. Just look at their violent crime rates. It's almost 0.
That suggests a culture superior to that in the U.S. where violent crime is much higher occurrence.
Kendi is just trying to obfuscate the truth, and he is conflating race and culture.
The more incoherent you are, the more accolades you will get.
I like to have an open mind when listening to anyone on any topic, but a person who literally writes that the only solution to past discrimination is current discrimination, and is on record that the only explanation for difference of outcome is "bad rules" as he puts it in his NPR interview, it's hard not to watch this with a jaundiced eye.
Do they require drivers license ID to fly to the Aspen Institute? To get into the Aspen Institute?
I think they let anyone in as long as you sound intellectual. At least JP spread useful ideas. Can't say the same about this fellow....
"The activism" (and by extension, the sort that Mr. Kendi offers as anti-racism) "is a way for useless people to feel important, even if their activism" (read false gospel) "is counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
From the get-go this is flawed.
If one says "I'm not racist" his response is "well, what is a 'not-racist'".
Jesus, it's not a noun.
If I said to him "I'm hungry" will he say "well, what is a 'hungry'"?
These "gotcha" thinking scholars are so draining!
But I'm here because we all need to listen to those we don't agree with (as painful as this is)...
Define racism.
@Okiroshi Faith-based arguments, dogmatic approach to arguments, no tolerance for being questioned. These people would find everything in common with a 12th century Catholic cleric.
I think the most telling thing about Kendi's arguments is that he has refused to debate them.
This guy's intelligence is perfectly matched to your average Humanities teacher. Not a compliment by the way.
Ibram X. Kendi was born as Henry Rogers to a father who was a tax accountant and hospital chaplain and a mother who was a business analyst. Both parents are now Methodist ministers. He attended private schools for six years and two universities where he got 3 degrees. X
I am all for progressive thinking I but I listened for an hour and I don’t think he said much but instead spoke in broad generalizations. Definitely may try his book hopefully there are more specific details in it.
So listening and looking but finding nothing, you would like to see more? There isn't anymore because there's nothing but circular arguments and flawed logic. Save your money and time. This is a cult of emptiness.
[Eleven months later...]
Was the book any better?
Not a single viable thought was conveyed during this Talk .. but Aspen is nice this time of year
That's because this issue is the size of a mountain range and the video was the length of an ant. I encourage you to continue your journey of learning about systemic racism if you wish to understand his meanings. Do it for humanity.
@@juliacarr5579
Progressives passed gun control laws to oppress people of color who are disproportionately arrested. Gun laws only began when Democrats got scared because black people were exercising their Second Amendment Rights. Luckily Charlton Heston and the NRA stepped up to oppose this systemic racism.
DO THE WORK!
As a white American I've been really frustrated with these feeling of not wanting to be racist, feeling afraid of not just people calling me out on racism (cause I have been even if unintentionally), but of being hated for so many things I feel I had no power over and no opportunity to choose. And a deep frustration of not being able to change anything to get rid of racism in myself or in society. I feel like a lot of the people in these comments could relate to the above feelings in some respect.
All that said I'm super grateful to have found this talk. It helped so much define and navigate what I've internalized, how those internalized ideas are corrosive, harmful, and illogical. And also how to start to eradicate them from myself, and hopefully from society at large.
For all those in the comments who are here to yell racists or argue over semantics in an effort to disqualify 99% of what he said, maybe don't. I understand feeling uncomfortable and vulnerable in these talks and discussions. But it only gets better when you face it, and start working on improving on it. The path forward for all of us won't start by sticking our heads in the sand.
Anywho, I'm sure somebody is going to get really angry by what I wrote, but that's okay.
This is either some of the greatest satire ever written or it's the musings of a mad person. If it's the former vs. the latter, kudos to you.
Coleman Hughes would talk circles around this person. This is so vague and wandering... Bordering on blatant racisim.
His book should be called "How to be a Grifter". He is a star in that.
Please talk with Coleman Hughes!!!! Ibram is bankrolling waaaaayyyyy too much off of his divisive ideas to be humiliated and put against any intellectual rigor. I wouldn't do it either Ibram, but pleeeaaaase have a discussion with Coleman Hughes!!!
Here's where I have a problem with his definition of a racist policy. He thinks that a racist policy is a policy that creates or sustains racial inequity, but let's think about this for a minute.
Let's say you have a policy that everyone, regardless of race, sex, class, religion, ethnicity or any other defining factor, can enter any legally permissible profession they choose. Is this a racist policy? I don't think so. It treats everyone as equals, which is consistent with Kendi's defintion of "anti-racist," so how could it be?
Now let's say you have two groups, and we'll just call them "Group A" and "Group B" so as to not bring in any baggage associated with any real-world groups.
Group A gets to talking, and there gets to be a sense among them that high-paying professions are best because they improve their standard of living, so a high percentage of people in Group A set out to be doctors, lawyers, CEOs, etc.
Group B gets to talking and decides that high-paying professions aren't for them because they take too much time away from family and make people lose focus on what's really important to them in pursuit of money, so Group B sets out to become teachers, nurses, mechanics, etc.
Years later we look at the two groups and it turns out that Group A is significantly wealthier than Group B, meaning that the end result of the policy was inequity. Does that mean the policy was racist?
'equity' is a term used by Communists to take power. 'see there is no equity, you need to give us all the power to redistribute'.
the worst book I've ever read .
My guess is he thinks racism will go away if we ignore it, which is not true
John McWhorter, Shelby Steele, Walter E. Williams, Glenn Loury...Coleman is still growing...
I misread that as "how to be an Anti-christ"... turned out to be a very different video.
@Phil 502 trump is living it out
same thing!
Dude thats kinda funny lol, fuck dyslexia lol it sucks but this video is still pretty dope
“No-one is equal to anything. Even the same man is not equal to himself on different days.”
― Thomas Sowell
Is America the only country in history where you become popular and successful for calling it evil, and also still go your whole life insulated from this fact?
Why wouldn't you "want to name names" if you're a scholar and they examples of what you are talking about?
The demand for racism exceeds the supply.
Oh imma steal that.
So the crowd laughed at him because he couldn’t even explain racism 😂😂😂
And he thought they were supporting him 🤦🏾♂️
Man, Sowell would eat this lightweight alive. This guy is not even the problem, he's a symptom. People actually pay to hear this gibberish?
Hmmmm at 35 his answers are completely circular.
Ibram Kendi: “The only way to undo racism is to consistently identify and describe it"
Also Ibram Kendi: *incapable of providing coherent definition of racism*
Define racism.
Why define it when not doing so lets you change it at a whim?
@@afkaqualls Racism is an ism at the end of race. The r is a letter in the English alphabet and it is subsequently followed by other letters in the English alphabet to make a word called racism which is essentially an assortment of letters situated next to each other to spell out the word racism which, in its simplest form describes the ism of race and the race of ism.
This should clear things up
So, what I’m hearing is... it’s more helpful to say, “that’s racist. You’re not racist, that’s racist.” In the way that I’ve learned to say, “that’s harmful (bad), instead do You’re Bad.”?
I don't even do that anymore, because the term "racism" and "racist" mean a white person that isn't genuflecting to this nonsense. When someone says something disparaging, with a broad brush across an entire demographic, pretends to speak for a broad demographic, or bashes with a broad faulty generalizing brush, I just tell them how dumb it is. The man with the long hair on stage pretends he speaks for a entire demographic, and wants you to believe it. He may even believe it himself, and that's what makes him ridiculous.
@@troy3456789 Plus he's just trying to profit.
Go to a shrink, they will explain it to Whites.
I agree that is one of useful messages in this talk and is useful. Whatever your definition of racism is, it’s far more productive and accurate to use “racist” as a description of behaviors and actions rather than of people. No one fits into a box bounded by a single word.
@@samsangankar2598 Racism is also policies and practices that prohibit Blacks from being deprived from the same opportunities as Whites.
Funny he says everyone claims to be an expert on racism....isn't that exactly what he claims?
Dude has a doctorate, has written several books, and doesn’t know how to pronounce the word “secede”. 😂
Pretty sure he was given a doctorate. Guys like him don't believe in working to achieve personal goals. His books are little more intelligible than what a chimp with a type writer could produce.
Oh yea, I said what I said!
I just expected sooooo much more because of all the hype. ⭕ 🔁 that was tough to sit through.
Define racism.
Where is the hype coming from? I've never heard of this guy.
@@afkaqualls the belief that a certain or races are superior or inferior to others.
It may also but not necessarily include actions based on that belief.
This guy is very much a light weight intellectual. Seen him in any debates?
Politeness is not always good. Being polite and not calling Kendi full of stupid and idiotic and circular thought that becomes self referential proof of his own thought ...is not good for society.
Henry - "Racism is racist ideas, leading to racism in a racist world". Universities and corporate Sr. VP's - "take my money!"
"The only way to keep racism going and to keep getting paid is to consistently identify and describe it."
Ibram X Kendi internal mantra
Define racism.
He can't even define it
Not sure anyone should be listened to a person that can't even define what racisim is without using the word racist/racisim.
The most important and defining moment of this long talk is on _defining racism_, @ 34:00 to 34:50.
*_"Racism is a collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated with racist ideas."_*
Crowd reaction: silence then followed by polite incredulous laughter of ... yeah sure... once they realized it was a circular definition.
It's not circular. It is providing context for how racism exists - through a system made up of policies that favor mostly white and wealthy people, thereby recreating itself through a white lens on history, movies, education, and through a system that still perpetuates violence against Black peoples due to there being mostly white representation and white policies that neglect to consider the needs of Black lives. The system of racism is not merely a view someone holds or a feeling of hatred against people of color, it's negligence to compensate for the 400 years of slavery and the subsequent poverty, trauma and pain that still exists today in Black communities. Meanwhile (mostly) white people have had the privilege of maintaining assets, owning property through several generations, and benefitting from light skin privileges, such as having the majority of representation of their race in the movie industry, politics, medicine, highrr education and other leadership positions. Being a racist is merely benefitting from this system that is set up to be racist and those who are willing to do the real work to unravel the deeply embedded systems of racist ideals are doing the work of being Anti-racist, but since they still benefit from the system, the system by nature of what it is innately generates racism. You can't really NOT be racist, but if you can open your eyes to what's all around, that prisons have mostly Black and Native populations, that the 13th Ammendment made Black people prisoners instead of slaves, and that Black slaves were freed into poverty that still has a strong effect today.
I laughed so hard at that 😂
What's an apple?
It's something that looks like an apple and smells like an apple.
These people are seriously making idiocracy look like a documentary. 😂😂
@@juliacarr5579 how do you suggest it should be compensated?
I'm about halfway through, and I'm thinking that Kendi would benefit from more examples or stories that illustrate his point. Most of what he's saying is very generalized, which makes it hard to figure out how his ideas fit into the real world. I'm enjoying the talk though, and I may have to pick up his book and see how he does in that.
His book is full of searing stories. Highly recommended.
I'm about halfway through How To Be an Anti-racist and it is very insightful. I think that the book really expands on the concepts presented in this discussion, which is just an overview. I sought out the discussion to put a face and a voice to his words, and now I'm going back to the book.
I found the same I like his points but I find them hard to grasp
I agree very spotty.
@@LycheeGirl816 Checkout Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, and Coleman Hughes. Highly recommended.
Anti-racism sounds to me like a negative in photography. It's racist but in a different way than traditional racism. I still think not being racist is the only way to run a fair society.
That's a good analogy. If racism is the subject of the 'photo', it's still the subject of the negative.
Right i see it as either your racist where you think you race is superior to other races or your not racist and think nothing about the race of others
Is anyone else in their 70’s having a deja vu moment of our 20’s....when will we learn?
I just watched an interview where someone said that to Angela Davis! (interview from 2018) I have to say it is downright eerie.
It’s good to hear from those like you that have walked the earth and witnessed all of this up to now 🙏 I REALLY appreciate the comment
It’s just so damn heartbreaking. Homo “sapiens,” my a$$
"when will we ever learn"... that's a song from "riding in the car car," carpool days, pops when wearing seat belts was a choice. I was born in 1968 right as the strike at SFSU was starting. During my lifetime the forgetting to remember and the remembering to forget seem to have prevailed. Meanwhile some of us never forgot and kept looking for others who were remembering...These amazing moments of remembering to remember we need to keep up and support ... I believe it is not just "deja vu all over again" What was happening in my 20s? The AIDS and crack epidemics, the deepening of disruption and incarceration and sinking of the median wage, tax cuts for the rich due to Neo-liberal policies in the echoes and ossification of COINTELPRO and the arrival of the first Gulf War... Oh, there was a wall that came down and people used pieces of it to try to say that Marxism was dead, and hey, why not feminism too? Nelson Mandela was released from jail and apartheid as it was known there was ended And too many people started reading Ayn Rand as they developed software instead of reading Hannah Arendt ... Maybe that was all a little di$tracting I am so grateful for my education and the people who remembered and spoke up and have been speaking up all along and grateful for my local listener sponsored radio. Hopefully it is encouraging and not a cooptation or looking good in the moment that an old men'$ club like Aspen is sponsoring such a talk.
@@bboop25 you mean we're "homo forgettiens"?
Nothing he stated would pass the muster of a community college course on logic. Such is what happens when individuals with SAT scores just north of 1,000 become "public intellectuals."
He should debate Coleman Hughes. Let’s put his unchecked idea through the fire.
His definition of racist is purposely vague, it leaves him open to call anyone a racist at anytime for any reason. It's part of the strategy of an abuser to leave the abused in a state of confusion and always questioning.
Yeah, to be the leader of a religion.
34:33 if you’re ever looking for circular definitions
Circular reasoning.
1) Racism: "a collection of racist policies leading to racial inequity substantiated by racist ideas."
2) Glorpinzork: "a collection of glorpinzork policies leading to glorpinzork inequity substantiated by glorpinzork ideas."
The first example he seems to be content with, the second I would contend he would ask for a another attempt to define it. Both leave the listener equally none the wiser on what the term means.
I haven't heard a person so quick to comment how poorly a term is defined, only to do a far worse job than the average person's attempt.
What's worse is his refusal to debate anyone with an opposing view. He talks with such certainty on a poorly formed argument to an already-converted audience and interviewer getting softball questions with no scrutiny.
Only someone who is convinced they're speaking the truth would invite the pushback, but he doesn't have the courage of conviction to do this - even with someone as courteous and well-reasoned as Coleman Hughes.
Define racism.
This guy talks in circles. Saying that racism is supported by racist policies and upheld and supported by racist people and then says if you don't do anything about what he deems racist policies, you too are a racist through the lens of his "anti-racist" ideology. In other words, you either support me or you're a racist and I must stamp you out through "anti-racist" rhetoric. He posits that "truth" is in the eye of the beholder and is whatever he interprets as such, a self-policing society built on the premises of race and guilt. So, we can never solve anything because people like him who spread this VERY open ended and vague philosophy that are just blanket statements, keep moving the goal post on what racism is since anybody and everybody can interpret and classify anything and everything racist. Moreover, it is evidence enough that this guy has never put his ideas to the test in a healthy debate. Colman Hughes and John McWhorter wanted to debate him and Kendi refused, and this is a little of what McWhorter said about Kendi in response:
"This kind of training is why Kendi’s response to criticism is irritation. “How can anybody not agree with my scholarship?”, he all but says straight out…He is irritated at real questions because he has had no experience with actual academic give and take.
He likes referring to his work as “my scholarship,” for example, apparently thinking of “scholarship” as unquestionable: you just gather and present facts and you have achieved “scholarship” immune to question. Naturally, then, he assumes that criticism can only come from someone who just wants to give him trouble…[H]e complains that his critics are dissing views he never expressed - genuinely unaware that clarification is a major part of defending one’s ideas (and often altering them). He openly says he won’t debate Coleman Hughes because it would entail denying that he meant this or that - genuinely unaware that this is much of what debate consists of."
In your presentation, did you demonstrate prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group?
Because I'm white, proud, love my people, and want to preserve my race. I'm a raciest?
I'd heard it said but on listening to this I see that it's true - Kendi truly is an intellectual lightweight.
Not lightweight. Fraud. He is an intellectual fraud. There is nothing there but the drinking bird who presses the Y key on Homer's keyboard.
@@TagSpamCop Well I guess that depends on whether he himself understands just how poorly constructed his arguments are. My suspicion is that he is blissfully unaware.
Random person: *_Hey Henry, how would you define Racism?_*
Henry X. Rogers: *_”So Racism, I would define it as a collection of Racist policies that lead to Racial inequity that are substantiated by Racist ideas.”_*
_______________________________
This individual teaches things. This person is a Ph.D., Director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University. It appears, he’s still researching the term (hint: Merriam-Webster).
Update: all the money for that anti-racist research is gone and nothing has come out of it. Oops.