Ẃokish Equivocation - Blake >> .
The opposite of “racist” isn’t “not racist.” It is “anti-racist.” What’s the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. ...
This definition, which does not merely mean “against racism,” as one might assume of the term, is absolutely standard in Social Justice. In fact, it reflects the core tenet of critical race Theory that racism is ordinary and pervades everything. ...
In critical race Theory, it is simply impossible for racism to be absent from any situation. One may be actively racist by perpetuating racial prejudice and discrimination against non-white people (particularly black people), or passively racist by failing to notice racism in oneself or others and thus failing to address it. Both of these are bad. ...
The antiracism approach would start from the following assumption, as phrased by critical race educator Robin DiAngelo (author of White Fragility): “the question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but rather, ‘how did racism manifest in this situation?’” (Source.) ...
Antiracism is the name for the practice she is expected to undertake under a Critical Social Justice paradigm in order to critically examine herself, the interaction, her past behaviors, her privilege and positionality within society (and its relevance—see also, intersectionality), as well as her motivations (including, especially, unconscious ones), and to find that racism and then abhor it so that she might fulfill her pledge to “do better.” To fail to do this is taken as a form of complicity—another manifestation of her racism—which is in need of critical examination under an antiracism program, and is very deeply Theorized as such (see also, white equilibrium, white fragility, white comfort, white innocence, white ignorance, racial contract, anti-blackness, active ignorance, pernicious ignorance, willful ignorance, false consciousness, and internalized dominance).
Social Justice scholars, including DiAngelo, indicate that antiracism is a “practice” that requires a “lifelong commitment to an ongoing process” of fighting systemic racism (see also, praxis). This process expects people to constantly reflect upon the ways in which they, and others, support, or are complicit in, “whiteness,” “anti-blackness,” “racism,” and “white supremacy,” as these terms are understood from within the context of critical race Theory and critical whiteness studies. ...
Active ignorance; Anti-blackness; Bias; Call out; Center; Close reading; Complicity; Consciousness raising; Critical; Critical consciousness; Critical race Theory; Dismantle; Do better; Equality (ideology); Equity; False consciousness; Impact versus intent; Implicit bias; Internalized dominance; Intersectionality; Mask; People of color; Pernicious ignorance; Position; Praxis; Privilege; Problematize; Racial contract; Racism (systemic); Social Justice; System, the; Systemic power; Theory; White; White comfort; White equilibrium; White ignorance; White innocence; White fragility; White supremacy; Whiteness; Whiteness studies; Willful ignorance; Woke/Wokeness
In critical race Theory, it is simply impossible for racism to be absent from any situation. One may be actively racist by perpetuating racial prejudice and discrimination against non-white people (particularly black people), or passively racist by failing to notice racism in oneself or others and thus failing to address it. Both of these are bad. ...
The antiracism approach would start from the following assumption, as phrased by critical race educator Robin DiAngelo (author of White Fragility): “the question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but rather, ‘how did racism manifest in this situation?’” (Source.) ...
Antiracism is the name for the practice she is expected to undertake under a Critical Social Justice paradigm in order to critically examine herself, the interaction, her past behaviors, her privilege and positionality within society (and its relevance—see also, intersectionality), as well as her motivations (including, especially, unconscious ones), and to find that racism and then abhor it so that she might fulfill her pledge to “do better.” To fail to do this is taken as a form of complicity—another manifestation of her racism—which is in need of critical examination under an antiracism program, and is very deeply Theorized as such (see also, white equilibrium, white fragility, white comfort, white innocence, white ignorance, racial contract, anti-blackness, active ignorance, pernicious ignorance, willful ignorance, false consciousness, and internalized dominance).
Social Justice scholars, including DiAngelo, indicate that antiracism is a “practice” that requires a “lifelong commitment to an ongoing process” of fighting systemic racism (see also, praxis). This process expects people to constantly reflect upon the ways in which they, and others, support, or are complicit in, “whiteness,” “anti-blackness,” “racism,” and “white supremacy,” as these terms are understood from within the context of critical race Theory and critical whiteness studies. ...
The system itself can be “racist” even if there are no racists within that system (see also, systemic power). An antiracist has the obligation of searching for instances of racism that confirm the systemic “reality” of racism, internally, with others, and in society and its various forms of representation.
While critical race Theorists and educators like Robin DiAngelo distinguish between “active racism” and “passive racism,” they indicate (e.g., in Is Everyone Really Equal?) that it is not possible to be passively antiracist. There is only active antiracism. In fact, to be passively antiracist would be to be passively racist, instead! Thus, the requirement to be an activist, both in the inward, soul-searching sense of the word and in the usual outward sense, is absolute and non-negotiable.
While critical race Theorists and educators like Robin DiAngelo distinguish between “active racism” and “passive racism,” they indicate (e.g., in Is Everyone Really Equal?) that it is not possible to be passively antiracist. There is only active antiracism. In fact, to be passively antiracist would be to be passively racist, instead! Thus, the requirement to be an activist, both in the inward, soul-searching sense of the word and in the usual outward sense, is absolute and non-negotiable.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.