For the edification of readers who follow Colin Wright's on Twitter: the definition of racism as involving both prejudice and power is old. If Colin had studied in a field where scholarship on racism is part of the curriculum, he'd probably know.
Attached, Paul Gilroy, 1990.
Attached, Paul Gilroy, 1990.
Sigh.
@Swipewright has responded, at some length, to @roderickgraham's tweet. It's useful that he did. He holds on tight to his own calculation of what racism is, how he wants it defined, and what possibilities of admonishing others flow from it for him.
It's funny. Mere minutes before Colin Wright wrote the above thread, I made this comment about him. And immediately, I had some doubts: am I being unfair, saying it too absolutely; should I provide evidence? Rod is generous to others, which makes me self-aware when I'm not.
I needn't have worried. At all.
Colin Wright has got what it takes, he says. He knows his stuff. He surely doesn't need to read another book or paper on racism. He rejects this definition. And that definition. Fully. Outrightly. Because they're woke.
And he's got his own. TYVM.
Colin Wright has got what it takes, he says. He knows his stuff. He surely doesn't need to read another book or paper on racism. He rejects this definition. And that definition. Fully. Outrightly. Because they're woke.
And he's got his own. TYVM.
What Rod means when he says Colin is interested in finding ways for white folk to be victims of racism.
https://twitter.com/roderickgraham/status/1366863213472669702?s=20
Colin Wright, #Quillette editor, to Rod Graham, sociologist publishing on racial beliefs:
I just see things differently, Rod. I'll wildly claim that your understanding of racism is actively harmful! Voilà! Have I made a proper fool of myself now?
Yes, you have, Colin.
I just see things differently, Rod. I'll wildly claim that your understanding of racism is actively harmful! Voilà! Have I made a proper fool of myself now?
Yes, you have, Colin.
Colin, #Quillette editor: "definitions of racism that exclude the possibility of POC ever being racist."
#CitationNeeded, Colin, citation needed.
I know people say it on Twitter. But he's talking about researchers here. So, go at it, Colin, substantiate your claim.
#CitationNeeded, Colin, citation needed.
I know people say it on Twitter. But he's talking about researchers here. So, go at it, Colin, substantiate your claim.
This particular discussion started when Colin took issue when an account encouraged Black folk to boycott Asian-owned businesses. The original tweet has since been deleted, but there is a lot more discussion on the person's timeline. Like this tweet.
Colin grapples with the concept of definition.
@threadreaderapp unroll
Rod wrote a response thread. It’s thorough.
https://twitter.com/roderickgraham/status/1367137066639835137?s=20
Another thoughtful response thread.
https://twitter.com/ReallyRealJC/status/1367179266476097548?s=20
For clarification purposes, I explained my approach on Twitter in the comments on @ReallyRealJC's threads above. Allow me to pull them over into my timeline and paste them here.
Part of my approach on Twitter is to highlight when work in academia gets mischaracterized, particularly if it is done by people who both bolster their claims with their own academic credentials (usually in unrelated fields) while pursuing goals that are anti-research. A/
I know it can look like dunking when I write threads that provide details, analysis, and/or parody of those figures once they are in my sight. I tend to notice their trajectory earlier than some others, though I'm not the earliest on any of them. B/
People like Peterson, Lindsay, Boghossian, Lehmann, Wright, Winegard, Stock, Hilton, etc.
The tension that arises comes from their straddle--relying on academic credentials while espousing research-averse views that are anti-trans, white nationalist, or scientific racism. C/
The tension that arises comes from their straddle--relying on academic credentials while espousing research-averse views that are anti-trans, white nationalist, or scientific racism. C/
Their takes on racism, transness, ethnonationalism will strongly overlap with lay views and definitions. That's the appeal. That's why they have huge audiences.
That's also why academics like me aren't usually on the same speech and publishing circuit as they are. D/
That's also why academics like me aren't usually on the same speech and publishing circuit as they are. D/
Given my approach on Twitter, my criticism of Wright wasn't so much with lay definitions (of which there are competing ones, which was the start of his comment) but with his idea that what to him--someone who has not studied this--looked like a brand-new definition . . . E/
. . . was therefore a definition he could easily reject. I pointed out that it's not a new definition. When Rod--who does study this and publishes on it and lives as a Black person in a southern state--responded, Colin got on his lecture horse. That is silly, to put it kindly. F/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
