Ibram X. Kendi: How to Be an "Acceptable" Racist

Chapter One -- Definitions

Critical Race Theorist Ibram X. Kendi is a leading luminary in today’s culture. His book, “How to Be an Antiracist” is required reading at many public high schools and at most colleges and universities around the nation. Thousands of diversity consultants use his philosophy for an increasing number of ‘anti-white’ seminars in schools, businesses, government agencies—even the U.S. military. Corporations have bestowed hundreds of millions of dollars upon his work in the hope of eradicating racism in our society. He has received hearty endorsements from the Biden-Harris administration and the Democratic Party which helps ensure that his voice on race relations will remain the dominant one in our culture for quite some time. Despite acclaim, however, critics contend that his work is more accurately described as “How to Be an Acceptable Racist.” They see his ever-increasing popularity as un-American and divisive.  They charge his historical examples are fraught with error and his intentions are deliberately designed to destroy America’s founding principles. In today’s cancel culture, however, his few critics face the threat of censorship and livelihood. To simply question the basic tenets of his work almost always means such persons are accused of being extreme racists. Unfortunately, far from uniting the nation in the goal of achieving equal opportunity for all, Ibram Kendi’s work is used today to persecute some for the preferential advantage of a few.  It is as un-American as Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto. 

The foundational thinking of Dr. Kendi is apparent in the first, short chapter of “How to Be An Antiracist.” It is in this section where he identifies key terms and offers his view of past events in America’s history. It is important to clearly understand his ideological background in order to make sense of his convoluted conclusion that racism is endemic to all-white institutions. Kendi admits that he was a mediocre student in high school and that he “didn’t read much of anything in those years.”[1]  He grew up under the tutelage of parents who subscribed to Black Liberation Theology and who saw America’s core as racist and whose ideas could’ve gotten them “lynched by men in badges today.”[2]  

In his short biographical introduction, Kendi levels many inaccurate charges against the Trump administration which are attributed to Leftist sources that often relied upon anonymous sources. He furthermore glosses over historical facts that would destroy the basis for his work. An example of the former is his claim that President Trump supported white supremacists in Charlottesville and called them ‘very fine people’ when he was on the record condemning such racists. An example of the latter is his fondly recalling the fact his mother taught in Monrovia, Liberia, for nine months before marriage.  He conveniently glossed over the fact the descendants of American slaves who were freed and expatriated there in the early 1800s openly discriminated against their fellow Africans which later led to murderous clashes between the two groups in the 1980s. The resulting chaos there resembled the genocide of the Hutus by the Tutsi’s which took place in Africa around the same time. Such discrimination and horrible excesses among Africans against members of their own race, of course, would do little to help support Kendi’s contention that only whites are guilty of "supremacist thinking."

Kendi then proceeds to describe the evolution of his own political thinking. He states that at one time he subscribed to the belief that Blacks could not be racist by admitting, “I no longer believe a Black person cannot be racist.” As will be seen later, he will use this charge to dismiss conservative Black critics such as Candice Owens, Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, or Shelby Steele for being as racist as Bull Connor. Surprisingly, after accusing Donald Trump of influencing and stoking white racism through his words and deeds, Kendi writes “…none of us are race representatives, nor is any individual responsible for someone else’s racist ideas.”[3]  This is an amazing admission for one whose work is now seen as representative of the thinking of many liberals today and who refuses to accept any responsibility for promoting today’s toxic racial climate. While most Americans today would agree with our nation’s Founders that individuals should not be held accountable for the crimes of their ancestors, few would agree that someone such as Hitler should not have been held responsible for indoctrinating his Nazis followers to commit genocide. Under Kendi, however, the exact opposite is true. White Americans all benefit from racist ‘privilege’ which justifies all current attempts to discriminate openly against them and he apparently absolves himself of any responsibility for indoctrinating his followers in such false beliefs.  “If discrimination is creating equity, then it is anti-racist,” Kendi argues.[4]  This false premise, of course, has already led and will continue to lead to all sorts of injury to innocent Americans by virtue of their simply having been born white. 

Kendi now proceeds to define some key terms—the first being racial inequality. “Racial inequality is when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing. Here's an example of racial inequality: 71% of white families lived in owner-occupied homes in 2014, compared to 45% of Latino families and 41% of black families.” . . . . “a racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups.”[5]  At first glance, the reader is struck with how illogical Kendi’s assertion is. Citing a simple difference between racial groups with no other pertinent data related to the topic allows him to conclude the obvious reason for the discrepancy is racism. One of the most noxious charges against a basic feature of our economic system and an entire race of people rests upon nothing more than a statistic. For Kendi and his advocates, nothing else is germane to the statistic—regardless of impact. In a society where individual choice and freedom have always been an ideal, the idea that the behavior of individuals within a group might influence aggregate results for such a group has no bearing.  

This clear oversight will constitute the lion’s share of the reason for the discrepancy. Had Kendi recalled the works of noted Black economist Thomas Sowell, himself once a radical extremist, he’d know that citing mere statistical differences in aggregate data is terribly misleading.[6]  An economist must control for variables in order to make sense of data. What are the educational backgrounds of the two groups? What percentage of adults within each group are married?  What percent consists of single mothers? What percent within each group has been continuously employed by the same employer for the last five years? These and other variables have a tremendous impact on the ability of an individual to own a home. Thomas Sowell would argue that even the variables themselves need to be examined! In taking into account the number of years of schooling, for example, he would not only examine the total time people have spent in school, but the types of educational degrees attained and the quality of the institution bestowing that degree. When all of the above factors are taken into consideration and we compare like-groups to one another, only then can we state there is a difference between the groups, and only then can we offer a hypothesis as to the reasons for that difference.  Kendi, who knows this perfectly well, has another goal in mind. 

To deliberately ignore such an elementary understanding of economics and market forces leaves the reader with the only plausible reason for his doing so—it was done for the obvious reason of attempting to prove the outcome of his preconceived bias.  It was clearly done for the opportunity to level a baseless and racist charge against both our economic system and an entire group of Americans who happen to be guilty of the charge of having simply been born white. When this happens repeatedly throughout his work, the reader is left with the realization that this was no accident. Kendi is an opportunistic racist and his brazen and unwarranted attacks upon “systematic racism” have little hope of ending economic discrepancies between racial groups. Moreover, it is as dangerous as it is hateful. 

Kendi’s deliberate distortions are capable of producing real harm to contemporary America in a number of ways. First, the use of deliberately false information to manipulate public opinion has always been characterized as propaganda. Here is another example.  Kendi argues “there is no such thing as a non-racist or race neutral policy.”[7]  Thus, when a bank offers home loans to customers, taking factors such as being ‘married,’ ‘annual income,’ or ‘years of education’ into account are not race-neutral. The reader is left to conclude these time-honored bulwarks of the market economy are racist barriers erected solely to deny persons of color the opportunity to own homes. Everything—all human interactions—according to Kendi involve race. Banks are no different. Profit motives are subordinated to the interest of keeping people of color in their place.  Readers are freely encouraged to resent in an unwarranted way our economic system which Kendi argues was devised by whites to subjugate minorities, but in turn, we’re not to think that this might lead to harming innocent institutions or people who are perceived to be part of the "white supremacist governing structure." This is as naïve as it is dangerous.

Contemporary American society is replete with the harmful effect of Kendi’s thinking. During the summer of 2020, there were over 12,000 recorded examples of civil unrest and thousands of stores were broken into, looted, and burned in dozens of cities by mostly Black Lives Matter protestors who were enraged over the death of George Floyd.[8]  Often, comments were made by BLM activists that their looting constituted an acceptable form of "reparations."[9] Chicago BLM activist Dahleen Glanton publicly addressed one such crowd, exhorting them to continue breaking the law: “I don’t care if somebody decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store because that makes sure that person eats. That makes sure that person has clothes. That is reparations. Anything they want to take, take it because these businesses have insurance.” When confronted with the charge that her words incited violence, Ariel Atkins defended her statement, justifying the looting and suggesting Black mayor Lori Lightfoot was racist for condemning the looters as criminals.  Atkins even defended those who tried to smash their way into a Ronald MacDonald House that cared for sick children and their families.

Self-proclaimed racial activist, Vicky Osterweil, defended looting as a form of racial justice in her book In Defense of Looting.  She contended that our nation’s beliefs on property and ownership are based on the history of anti-Black, anti-Indigenous oppression.[10]  Try explaining that to the descendants of the more than 50,000 indentured servants who were forcibly sent to the British colonies to labor for years for minor crimes, often so that they or their children could eat.[11] Historians estimate approximately one-fourth of all English migration to Britain’s American colonies consisted of convict laborers. Perhaps she and Ariel Atkins should make themselves a bit more familiar with American colonial history before they lay such historically incorrect charges against our nation’s legal foundations. To compare the life circumstances of those who today steal watches, jewelry, and designer clothes with those poor wretches whose convictions helped provide the basis for English common law is as unjust as comparing their incarceration to that of Jews during the Holocaust. To say our current legal system’s basis was built upon "racially supremacist foundations" lacks a total understanding of those foundations. For persons like Kendi and Osterweil, however, such charges are easily made.

Another example of Kendi’s racism may be seen in his contention that any discrimination against whites is not contrary to Constitutional protections such as ‘equal protection' under the law, but rather such anti-white racism is necessary to achieve ‘equity’ between the races.  Thus, the decision by Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf to deliberately exclude poor white families from financial aid designed to help the city’s poor is based upon Kendi’s philosophy that such discrimination is "antiracist."[12]  Because white median income in her city exceeds that of Hispanics and Blacks, excluding the city's poorest whites from such aid helps the city level the aggregate wealth among all racial groups and is thus a "positive good." The fact that some white families may be poorer than others has no bearing on their eligibility or personal need. It is overall group equity that is the desired goal here, not assistance based equally upon individual needs. The similarity between this sort of racist argument and that of the antebellum racist slaveholder, John C. Calhoun--who argued that slavery was--on the whole--a 'positive good'--is quite remarkable.  

It is interesting to apply Kendi’s Orwellian standards of racial equality and critical race theory justice to American society today. Take the following scenario comparing four individuals—all with children ready to apply to college. The first child is the daughter of a Somali refugee whose parents arrived here in the 1990s. The second child is the son of white Serbian refugee parents who came to this nation following that nation’s devastating civil war in the 1990s. The third is the child of a Black federal postal worker father and a white female elementary school teacher whose family roots have been in America for generations. The last child is the son of two African-American professionals whose family has lived in Philadelphia for generations.  

In each case, examples of historic discrimination or hardship might be proven.  The Somali refugee’s Muslim ancestors might have been treated poorly by European Christians who briefly held that nation for a couple generations. To an even greater degree, the ancestors of the Serbian Christians faced religious persecution, enslavement, onerous taxation, and cultural genocide at the hands of their Turkish-Muslim oppressors for over 600 years. The ancestors of the Black postal worker might indeed have one time been American slaves and were likely discriminated against on account of their race. His white, Italian Catholic wife may have had parents and grandparents who faced some discrimination in their lives as well. Finally, the ancestors of the two African-American professionals—like those of the postal worker—faced discrimination from the white professional community but were always able to remain amongst DuBois’ “Talented Tenth”—in other words, among the wealthy elite of African-American society. 

In today’s society, hopelessly overcome as it is with theories of “intersectionality” (where being a member of a more heavily oppressed group bestows societal privileges over members of ‘lesser’ oppressed groups and where descendants of such oppressor groups themselves are actually to be discriminated against) this is no easy task. Which children are to be given ‘preferential’ treatment under the guise of working to ensure ‘racial equity?’  Obviously, the Somali child’s minority Muslim faith, black skin pigmentation, and probably low-income family background make for a very strong case for preferential treatment--despite the fact America played no role in that nation's colonization and our nation spent both human and financial treasure to help the Somali people.  The fact that Somali clans discriminated against one another back in Africa--despite everyone being black--has no real basis for preferential treatment here in America. The mixed-race child whose parents were postal worker and teacher, will count as a person of color (POC) and will therefore qualify as being ‘oppressed’—despite the higher than the national average income of the family and the fact that only one parent might ‘qualify’ as being really oppressed. The child of the two black professionals will certainly qualify, despite the family’s having lived in relative prosperity for generations and likely possessing the highest family income of the four.  Finally, by CRT ‘racial justice’ standards, the child of the Serbian family would most likely face justified ongoing racial discrimination—by virtue of that child’s ‘white privilege.’ In order to arrive at ‘racial equity,’ there are no individual exceptions. To prefer the Serbian student over any of the other three would be a racist act. Moreover, to discriminate against this white male one time does not clear the record. He must be continuously discriminated against every time he applies to a school or for a job. After all, CRT doesn't say there is a time limit for discrimination that is justified.

This is the Catch-22 world of group social justice as espoused by CRT scholars today.  According to CRT philosophy, there is no such thing as individual freedom of choice because everything is under the influence of racist, white supremacist rules and policies. Individual behavior--the deliberate choices or acts of individuals--individual effort and achievement—none of these matter.  Only the statistical anomalies and differences between racial groups should be considered and that these exist at all is evidence of white racism. To remedy these anomalies, discrimination against whites is not only encouraged but absolutely necessary. 

Jack Bovee
Fort Myers, FL 

The writer has been a social studies educator, founder of Rho Kappa—the National Social Studies Honor Society--and a former elementary school principal.  He may be reached at JSBovee@aol.com. 

Endnotes

  1  Ibram X. Kendi, How to be An Antiracist, (New York: One World Press, 2019). 8.

  2  Ibid., 4.

  3  Ibid., 10.

  4. Ibid., 19.

  5. Ibid., 18.

  6. Among his other works, for many such examples see Thomas Sowell, Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality, (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1984).  

  7. Kendi, 18. 

  8.  It remains doubtful that police officer Derek Chauvin murdered Floyd. Floyd, who was resisting arrest, already had lethal dozes of several drugs in his system and autopsy reports revealed no such evidence.  It was reported by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) that “BLM activists were involved in 95% of the riots for which there is information about the perpetrators’ affiliation.” Their study involved data on 12,045 incidents of civil unrest in the U.S. from just May 26, 2020 to Sept. 5, 2020. 

  9.  Dahleen Glanton, “Reparations are about economic stability, not a pair of $120 Nikes,” Chicago Tribune, August 17, 2020, available at: https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-looting-black-lives-matter-reparataions-20200817-xdxu4ipu5rhqzkbdl4fpslsnha-story.html  

  10.  Lee Brown, “BLM organizer who called looting ‘reparations’ dismisses peaceful protesting,” New York Post, August 13, 2020. 

  11.  Anthony Varer, Bound With an Iron Chair: the Untold Story of How the British Transported 50,000 Convicts to Colonial America, (Westborough, MA: Pickpocket Publishing, 2011).  

  12.  “City of Oakland Mayor is branded racist for giving families of color $500 a month…”, Daily Mail, March 24, 2021, available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9399137/Oakland-California-exclude-white-families-living-poverty-500-month-checks.html.  Mayor Schaaf earlier defended her decision to tip off illegal criminals in Oakland that ICE was about to make arrests in her city.  See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efEcIsKKTJo