Thread by @AlsoACarpenter

So, we know Christopher Rufo is redefining terms to wage political warfare. He's told us. But many folks respond that he is just doing what antiracists have done by, e.g., "changing the definition of racism."

This is a silly claim, and I'll explain why.

Thread:

2/ I would argue that the "new" or "changed" definition of "racism" is the modern White anti-antiracists' "definition," as developed in the era of racial retrenchment (backlash) following the Civil Rights Movement.

3/ For example, here is the first dictionary definition of "racism": h/t @rasmansa

4/ Pretty good, I'd say.

Here is how Dr. King defined/understood racism (as well as Kelsey, whom he is quoting in the first image) in 1967. Seems the emphasis is still on inferiority/superiority as well as it being a justification for social exploitation.

5/ This is also consistent with preeminent Black sociologist Oliver Cromwell Cox's understanding of racism (though in 1948, when this was written, "racism" was a relatively new term and Cox speaks throughout his text of "race prejudice"):

6/ As we move into the modern era of CRT and antiracism more broadly, we can look at CRT founder Richard Delgado's definition. I admit this one is a bit anemic, but if anything it is too modern and conservative, though still consistent.

7/ We can also look at philosopher Charles Mills' definition. Seems pretty consistent with the 1953 definition, as well as with King and Cox:

8/ Even early CRT founders seem clear that at the root of racism is a "message of inferiority," even using this idea to distinguish disparate impact from racist disparate impact. See Charles Lawrence III:

9/ And, to be honest, Kendi is himself pretty consistent with the tradition:

10/ While we're at it, why not go all the way back to Frederick Douglass. Have a look, still all pretty consistent.

alsoacarpenter.com/2019/08/29/the…

11/ I think what has occurred is that, in reaction to the Civil Rights Movement successes, modern White Americans largely confuse "racism" with "race-conscious," viz., seeing race, allowing it to count for anything.

But THAT is the "new" understanding of "racism."

12/ Let me explain. And this will be long, sorry.

Broadly speaking, two visions of civil rights law emerged out of the Civil Rights Movement (CRM). On the one hand, White progressives, along with the developing Black middle-class, centered their continued civil rights vision on

13/ the analytics of prejudice, discrimination, and segregation. That is, the social problem of racism was understood to be personal prejudice and bias due to irrationally allowing physical and ancestral difference to justify partiality; discrimination was thought to be the

14/ specific, individuatable, and intentional actions resulting from personal prejudice—in particular, allowing race to figure into decision-making; and, last, segregation was thought to be the social, legal, and political manifestation of prejudice and discrimination.

15/ So construed, the remedy for racism was to overcome prejudice with knowledge and enlightenment, to overcome discrimination with color-blindness—not allowing race to “count for anything”—and, finally, to overcome segregation with racial “mixing” and absorption of minority

16/ communities into dominant communities, i.e., integration. CRT scholar Gary Peller has dubbed this analysis “liberal integrationism,” and it quickly became the dominant analysis of American “race relations” by the beginning of the 1970s (Peller 1990).

17/ On the other hand, a much older tradition contained in various Black nationalisms, going back to at least the latter part of the 18th century, was also central to the CRM, exemplified by activists as seemingly disparate as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Huey P. Newton.

18/ Rather than prejudice, discrimination, and segregation, this traditional Black activist analysis was centered on power, subordination, and the metaphor of colonialism. That is, the problem of racism in American society was understood to be the extreme power differential

19/ between the White and Black communities; the social and legal subordination of people-groups was understood to be the primary evil of racism; and the central metaphor for how the White community has historically related to the Black community was that of colonizer to

20/ colonized, not so much physical separation. In the words of Dr. King,

21/ The remedy, accordingly, was understood to be redistribution of social, legal, and political power, liberation of subordinate communities from the domination of the White community, and a reparations model of justice intended to democratically transfer illegitimately

22/ appropriated power and resources from colonizer to colonized. Even those, like Dr. King, who opposed the segregationist tendencies of some Black nationalists also opposed the liberal integrationist vision of absorption of Black institutions and norms into White institutions

23/ and norms. Again, in King’s words:

24/ And he goes on to endorse a reparations model of remediation:

25/ Despite this tradition, the success of the liberal integrationist model has all but outlawed this more “radical” Black activist analysis from public discourse, treating such claims as themselves “racist.” Once the ideology of liberal integrationism had been widely adopted,

26/ both Black nationalists and White supremacists could together be rejected as backward, prejudiced, unenlightened, anti-liberal enemies of racial progress in America—and, more realistically, enemies of the presumed “race-neutral” status quo. Rather than racial subordination or

27/ unequal distribution of power and resources, “color-consciousness” itself became the hallmark of racist violation, whether “perpetrated” by White or Black Americans. Simply put, contrary to the traditional Black activist analysis, to be “not racist” in post-CRM America is to

28/ not “see race,” to not allow race to “count for anything.” And the legal correlate of this integrationist ethic has been to understand “equal protection under the law” to mean color-blind “equal treatment for all,” regardless of racially subordinated historical circumstances.

29/ In short, race-based remedies for historically created race-based disparities (e.g., affirmative action, disparate impact suits, reparations) came to be considered themselves “racist” and legally subject to heightened scrutiny. Accordingly, implementation of the substantive

30/30 intentions of the Civil Rights Acts were superseded by mere facially race-neutral policies.

This is why anti-antiracists think antiracists are the ones changing definitions, when in reality it has always been them, seeking to avoid King's call to substantive equality.

30 is not too long, is it? Hahahaha! So sorry.