The Economist gets this badly wrong. The "identity politics" and "intimidation" they decry are the *only* reason we are paying attention to racial inequality as much as we are. This is exactly what it looks like for "new voices and experiences [to] enrich the debate."
The focus on power in the critical racial lens is correct, but the other word should be "difference" (of social, political, economic situation) not "division." And the concern about racial "innocence" is just bizarre and ... let's call it defensive.
The article is just incoherent.
"It believes in progress through argument and debate, in which reason and empathy lift truthful ideas and marginalise bigotry and falsehood."
What does @TheEconomist think marginalizing bigotry and falsehood looks like?
I like the Economist's concrete policy proposals very much! I think it's unfortunate that the Economist is categorically uninterested in reparations or any other policy that explicitly aims to--as opposed to indirectly--targets racial inequality.
Read about the #BREATHEAct, which explicitly targets racial inequality & racist injustice but is such a powerful freedom-enhancing package (freeing human beings from cages, borders, & dire material straits) that it would help a lotta white folks too. /end breatheact.org
There's another essay with a lot of handwringing about critical race theory. But first I should say I do appreciate the mea culpa. @TheEconomist acknowledges it fucked up by endorsing imperialism in the 19th century. amp.economist.com/international/…
They misrepresent @DrIbram. Kendi's antiracism has nothing to do with White self-flagellation. He and other influential antiracists focus on practical, material effects of policy. @TheEconomist should cheer this bc we can change policy in ways we cannot change hearts and minds.
The juxtaposition of Pluckrose & Lindsay next to Kendi and Mills & Shelby is embarrassing. Liberalism doesn't *have to* be naive. Groups exist; disadvantaged groups are not helped by pretending they don't. Power exists; empowering the weak is fully compatible with rule of law.
I appreciate that @TheEconomist ended by mentioning two prominent Black philosophers--Charles Mills & Tommie Shelby--who combine critical race theory and liberalism. It is both possible to do so and necessary for liberalism to remain relevant. /end rant
See also @mccormick_ted's comments.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.