1/ If you attack critical race theory, singling out Ibram Kendi & Robin DiAngelo (who actually aren't crits & whose arguments differ), then Derrick Bell (who was a crit but differed from both of them) you show you don't understand CRT...
2/ And likely haven't actually read any of the work you're critiquing closely or considered the nuances of antiracist argumentation. Kendi is not DiAngelo is not Bell is not Oluo is not McIntosh is not Crenshaw is not hooks is not Anderson is not Dyson is not West is not Davis...
3/ ...is not Darity is not Bonilla-Silva is not Feagin is not Lopez is not Rankine is not Wilkerson is not Yancy is not Glaude is not Delgado and Stefancic is not Kelley is not Sue is not Horne...
4/ is not Taylor is not Coates is not Armour is not me, etc. Collectively condemning all antiracism as "wokeism" is intellectual laziness and supreme bad faith...
5/ It's what you do when you seek to throw buzzwords around that you can't define and smear everyone who says racism is a real and persistent problem in America because you wish to maintain the existing racial hierarchies and believe them to be legitimate...
6/ It's the same w/attacking intersectionality based on the misuse of the concept by a handful of so-called antiracist activists (who falsely think it means there's a hierarchy of oppression & greater legitimacy to the opinions of those w/more marginalized identities)...
7/ The right just sets up straw men when they attack CRT w/o actually engaging its core tenets (or flatly misrepresenting them), or intersectionality or antiracism itself. Like "woke" and "cancel culture" these words have no meaning in the mouths of the cynics who deploy them...
8/ It's sad. There are good debates/discussions to have (we in the antiracist community have them w/each other regularly). All are welcome to engage but if you haven't ever demonstrated a commitment to fighting racism (or even acknowledging it) don't expect to be taken seriously.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ If there's no evidence of voter fraud in GA (and there is none) then what 'problem' is being addressed w/new voter restrictions there? It can only be the 'problem' that the 'wrong' people are voting. Not illegally mind you (again no evidence of that), but just voting at all...
2/ And who are these people? Black folks and white city folks and students mostly. There is NO anti-fraud reason for limiting early voting, ending it on Sundays, or banning handing out food or water. But this is a good way to limit voting by POC and working class folks...
3/ Bc early voting helps them if they can't get off work on election day, or don't want to stand in long lines that day (bc their precincts don't have enough machines to handle demand). So too Sunday voting (Souls to the Polls) and giving water to folks waiting long times...
But Matt, by your standard we would never discuss racial inequity at all for fear of upsetting white people. Why not use the race/class combo framing of @IanHaneyLopez and get at both issues. You are throwing in the towel on solidarity altogether so as to pander to white racism..
I wrote a book on this, Colorblind, which shows why class centric, race-phobic messaging actually doesn't work the way many think. It never has. And in this case it is once again telling POC to be quiet about their issues so we can attend to the needs of Joe Sixpack...
And yes, I agree that @IanHaneyLopez doesn't advocate front loading with race, but showing the interest convergence of race and class. But it seems like you really want to avoid race altogether, which is both morally and strategically absurd
1/ If you bash cancel culture & scream about free speech but support states/school districts banning material they deem influenced by Critical Race Theory (or really anything that says racism has been a central feature of U.S. history--an inarguable truth btw), you're a fraud...
2/ A committee in NH just passed out a bill to do this. One proponent of the bill cited a lecture of mine being used in some classes as the reason why. What was the offending material that hurt this snowflake's feelings so much? Let's see. He cites three points in the lecture...
3/ First, he was mad bc I said, "Rich white people telling working-class white people that their enemies are Black and Brown...That's the whole history of America." Well, it's true. That's been a constant since the colonies...
1/ If you need proof that racism harms white folk too, just consider the trajectory of COVID deaths and what it tells us...
2/ In April of 2020 when whites had only been 30% of C19 deaths, and headlines announced disproportionate Black death rates, the administration and the right demanded opening everything back up, ending lockdowns, etc...
3/ Coincidence? Of course not. If the data had shown disproportionate white death (or wealthy death, or younger folks dying or healthier folks), no way are people clamoring for "getting back to normal" or showing up at rallies with guns and camo, screaming about 'tyranny...'
There is a stunning lack of analytical sophistication among much of left Twitter, which causes their loudest voices to grossly overstate support for progressive/left policies. As someone who supports those policies it pains me to say this but it's true...
A THREAD
2/ These folks excitedly point to survey data showing broad support for M4A, for instance, or other left priorities & say "see, the people are with us!" and thus, the reason we don't get those things passed is "big Pharma money" or other corporate money buys off the lawmakers...
3/ This is incredibly simplistic on multiple levels. First, NO lawmakers would actually vote against what the people in THEIR district supported if they believed those people were actually going to vote, money be damned. They wouldn't commit political suicide for PAC money FFS...
That any conservatives would today praise MLK is evidence of the failure of our school system to teach him accurately, or the utter venality of those conservatives. Not ONE movement conservative supported King while he was alive. They detested him...
(a brief thread)
2/ The National Review — the main organ of the movement — condemned the civil rights movement he led and actually claimed “crazed Negroes” might have bombed the 16th St Baptist church in B’ham themselves, just to cast aspersions on sweet little segregationist whites...
3/ No conservatives or right wingers marched with him. And please, don’t say “but Charlton Heston!” That was actually when Heston was a liberal, so...