Scan barcode
A review by quenchgum
How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi
3.0
I struggled with this one.
I tabbed pages as I read it. I used green tabs for each of Kendi’s many thoughtful, nuanced points. I must have, like, fifty green tabs. That’s priceless. Worth the cost of admission.
I used red tabs for flaws that I saw in the book, and there must have been about fifty of those, too. Most of these "flaws" weren’t even to disagree with his core theses, but rather just my frustration that he was presenting strong ideas in weak ways. He left points open to attack where he could have instead acknowledged and successfully countered most of his expected critiques, even if at times that would mean admitting the limitations of his arguments. He lost credibility by pretending otherwise. When he did take the time to forestall pushback, he generally mentioned weak straw-man arguments as opposed to wrestling with the more nuanced arguments against his positions. He also repeatedly relied on emotional hot-button “examples” for his claims that rightfully tugged on heartstrings but otherwise didn’t honestly engage with the topic.
It’s an important time for people to be having these conversations, but I also feel like the single most productive thing anyone could do would be to *bridge the gap*. People are so polarized. You need to spell it out for them where you both acknowledge their point *AND* tell them what you think they’re still missing. Do all of these people deserve to have their hands held through the process? Probably not, no. But would it be helpful? Definitely. In my view, Kendi pretends there aren’t valid critiques of his positions, and I’m scared that may cause more harm/polarization than any benefit we get from his thoughtful insights that I slapped a billion green tabs on as I read.
IDK.
I tabbed pages as I read it. I used green tabs for each of Kendi’s many thoughtful, nuanced points. I must have, like, fifty green tabs. That’s priceless. Worth the cost of admission.
I used red tabs for flaws that I saw in the book, and there must have been about fifty of those, too. Most of these "flaws" weren’t even to disagree with his core theses, but rather just my frustration that he was presenting strong ideas in weak ways. He left points open to attack where he could have instead acknowledged and successfully countered most of his expected critiques, even if at times that would mean admitting the limitations of his arguments. He lost credibility by pretending otherwise. When he did take the time to forestall pushback, he generally mentioned weak straw-man arguments as opposed to wrestling with the more nuanced arguments against his positions. He also repeatedly relied on emotional hot-button “examples” for his claims that rightfully tugged on heartstrings but otherwise didn’t honestly engage with the topic.
It’s an important time for people to be having these conversations, but I also feel like the single most productive thing anyone could do would be to *bridge the gap*. People are so polarized. You need to spell it out for them where you both acknowledge their point *AND* tell them what you think they’re still missing. Do all of these people deserve to have their hands held through the process? Probably not, no. But would it be helpful? Definitely. In my view, Kendi pretends there aren’t valid critiques of his positions, and I’m scared that may cause more harm/polarization than any benefit we get from his thoughtful insights that I slapped a billion green tabs on as I read.
IDK.