Why Kendi-ism is terrible.

Take premises from Kendi:

K1 Every law or policy is either racist or antiracist
K1.1 Only antiracist laws or policies are permissible
K2 Every law or police that is race-neutral, that is, that does not take race into account, is racist
It unmistakably follows from K1, K1.1, and K2 that

K2.2 Any law or policy which does not take race into account, or — what is in practice the same thing — “accounts” for race by treating each race equally is racist, and therefore not permissible.
And from K2.2 we get

K2.3 In order to be a antiracist and thus permissible, any law or policy must explicitly take race into account and decide how — not whether — to favor and disfavor the various races.
Hence Kendi’s claim that EVERY law or policy is “guilty” of discrimination. There are no NON-DISCRIMINATORY laws or policies: the only question, for Kendi, is WHETHER the law or policy discriminates in a ‘racist’ or ‘antiracist’ way.
To be clear:

On Kendi-ism, it is NEVER permissible for a law or policy to treat all human beings equally, that is, justly.

On Kendi-ism, EVERY law or policy MUST engage in systemic injustice, by (a) treating persons merely as members of races and (b) treating races differently
Kendi-ism REQUIRES systemic injustice, in the name of ‘social justice’, or more explicitly ‘race justice.’

Kendiian ‘race justice’ wants to treat RACES as the subjects of justice, assigning CRIME and GUILT and PUNISHMENT and RESTITUTION to RACES for their “crimes.”
Kendi-ism fully endorse “race guilt”, “race crime” “race debt” and calls for “race punishment” and — as a natural corollary rate-hate: is one not entitled to hate the race that has ‘wronged’ one?
The evil of assigning moral blame and guilty to “the white race” for “crimes against the black race” should be obvious.
To be sure, MEMBERSHIP in “the black race” was used as a justification for doing certain evils, and in the West, typically by MEMBERS of “the white race.”

But the history of slavery in America, for example, has little bearing on most members of “the black race” in Africa
Arguments regarding diffuse “benefit” are used to implicate those members of “the white race” in America who did not take any direct part in the institution of race-based chattel slavery, in slogans such as “America was built on the backs of slaves” and so on.
The fallacy here is that slavery WAS NOT in the American case (and in general never has been, in any case) an economic BENEFIT to the POLITY.

Slavery is always a bad system — EXCEPT FOR THE SLAVEOWNING CLASS.
That is to say, in economic terms, slavery in America was bad for EVERYONE BUT the slaveowners, which were a tiny minority of Americans (and, it is to be noted, in some admittedly exceptional cases, included blacks).

Slavery was NOT a benefit for nearly all whites or blacks.
Slavery was a benefit for slaveowners, a tiny minority of whites, and an even tinier minority of blacks. Why would a black man own slaves?


But slavery was a parasitic institution, benefiting those engaged in it, but no one else.
To speak of “benefits” of slavery, the wealth created by slavery in America, is to make the basic economic error:

One looks at e.g. what was accomplished by slavery, but fails to see WHAT WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED as a result of such a stupid and inefficient institution.
It is the same error as is made by those who think no case of spending can ever be bad, because it, after all, accomplishes *something.*

This thinking neglects what the same money was NOT spent on, and what was accordingly NOT accomplished.
Whatever “benefit” non-slaveowners in America gained from slavery, the cost to them was greater. Slavery is a paradigmatic case of an institution that benefits only a tiny minority, at the expense of everyone else.
THUS it is not true that “all white people” in America “benefitted from slavery” — no more than it is true all black Americans, who have on average much higher standards of living than black Africans — “benefitted from slavery” — although both indisputably benefitted from America
It is important to note that black Americans are comparatively well-off compared to most people in the world: moreso than most black Africans or most Chinese, etc.
That black Americans are not, on average, as well-off as white Americans does not remove the fact that they are, in fact, comparatively well-off, a fact that must be attributed to America.
But if “well-off-ness” in America MUST be attributed to slavery, then so too MUST the comparative well-off-ness of black Americans be attributed to slavery.
And if this “benefit” of American prosperity entails MORAL COMPLICITY, it follows that black Americans are ALL COMPLICIT IN SLAVERY.

And it follows that all black Americans bear RACE GUILT for black slavery.

Black Americans are, after all, Americans, are beneficiaries of whatever prosperity America has brought about. If black Americans have benefitted LESS than white Americans, that does not mean they have not benefitted at all — and if “having benefitted” = “morally complicit” ...
But this is ALL WRONG.

If it is morally detestable to blame black Americans AS A RACIAL GROUP for slavery in America, it is also so to blame white Americans as a racial group.

“Race guilt” is a detestable idea, whether promulgated by a Nazi or a Kendi.
[Thread postponed on account of power failure.]

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن

Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EveKeneinan

3 Jan
No, it doesn’t mean EQUALITY; THAT is the FUCKING PROBLEM.

"Racial equity does not mean simply treating everyone equally, but rather, allocating resources and services in such a way that explicitly addresses barriers imposed by structural racism and White privilege..."
“racial equity” = treating people unequally, based on their race

“addressing White privilege” = depriving White people of goods or access to goods on the basis of their race, even though they have done nothing wrong
A large amount of “equity” is illegal under American constitutional protections against seizure of property without due process and equal protection of the laws.
Read 8 tweets
3 Jan
A serious problem with Kant’s First formulation of the Categorical Imperative, the Universality formulation, is that while it is often a crucial test, it isn’t a perfect one — some ethical matters ought not to be universalized: this destroys their very substance.
A good example of a place where Kant’s test breaks down is in our ethical obligations to our own family, which are always particular: no one but her children have *these* duties to my/our mother.
Kant’s test of universalizability does do an excellent job testing whether something CAN BE universalized — and all moral principles that apply to us just qua human beings, or rather, persons, are such.
Read 6 tweets
2 Jan
There are TWO main kinds of Socialism. The Left needs to stop pretending that National Socialism or German Socialism "isn't Socialism" because it isn't the other KIND of Socialism: Image
"The National Socialists hated socialists.”

No. The Nazis hated COMMUNISTS.

Precisely BECAUSE they were the RIVAL faction of Revolutionary Socialism.
Nazism and fascism more broadly were REVOLUTIONARY IDEOLOGIES.

Both the “revolutionary” and the “ideology” parts place these movements firmly on the LEFT.
Read 6 tweets
2 Jan
The Left will continue to act as if they are not subject to the rules they desire others to obey — but they cannot stop us from simply holding them in more and more contempt whenever they do.

After their actions regarding Trump, they have no ground to throw these stones.
Trump was the best president we’ve had in generations and the Left went insane, pretending he was a demon, and supporting a senile relic like Biden because “nothing mattered” but getting rid of Trump.

It does matter. They CHOSE this decrepit fool, and we’re all paying for it.
Of course Americans are going to be saying FUCK JOE BIDEN, or it’s stand in LET’S GO BRANDON — because Biden has been a disaster for Americans, inflicting international disgrace and domestic misery.

And Biden’s characteristic move for his failures is to blame everyone else.
Read 4 tweets
1 Jan
From a pro-life position, it is sometimes morally permissible to do something that you know will lead to a loss of life.
Generally, those of us on the pro-life side accept the ethical principle call the Principle of Double Effect (PDE):
Here is David Oderberg’s statement of the PDE (he calls it the DDE, Doctrine of Double Effect) :
Read 23 tweets
31 Dec 21
It’s okay if vaccinated people spread covid.
As you can tell from the anecdote, two lines forbid people with covid from going in, but the vaccinated line is indifferent to whether you have covid or not. All that matters there is your vaccination status.

If you are vaccinated, it is fine to carry in a live case of covid.
So, to get in to the event, you can either (a) not have covid or (b) have covid but be vaccinated.

Does this double standard make sense? How is it just? Or sane?
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!