There is a useful distinction to be made between the article’s intent (to shed light on the normalcy of American racism) and its execution.
My criticism was of its execution, not of the intent.
My thread was an attempt to offer suggestions on how this might be done.
And I would further assert that "normal" racist behaviors & beliefs exist on a spectrum.
The Times, in my view, attempted the former, to identify a poisonous, but common, force in America society. But, again, what they achieved was arguably “normalization.”
To normalize something is to render it acceptable.
We tend, as humans, to view "normalcy" as an excuse. To react to the assertion of normalcy as if we are being compelled to forgive and justify.
Some mounted research-based criticisms**. Others, however, attacked Arendt for daring to suggest that human wickedness could be quite ordinary indeed.
We are even more adverse to the notion that our actions (or inactions) enable the most evil among us to flourish.
This is arguably how the NYTimes failed.
There are many good critiques of Arendt’s work on Eichmann. Some, for example, have argued her impression of Eichmann was viewed through the lens of her own work on totalitarianism & thus biased. . . .