DEFINITIONS OF DESCRIMINATION

 

What Conclusions Can You Draw About the Purpose of Defining or Re-Defining terms for Readers?

The piece centres on the terms “racist” and “anti-racist”.  Kendi states in para 1, Ref A:

“If we don’t do the basic work of defining the kind of people we want to be in language that is stable and consistent, we can’t work towards stable, consistent goals.”

The descriptors “racist” and “antiracist” are applied across the whole vista of life and across global humanity.  Basically, he proposes global warming policies, laws, law makers and the attitude of the general population of the planet to fall into either of these descriptors.  The “racist” term is largely untroubled in his work.  He focuses on the meaning of “antiracism” and what “antiracism” policies are and more importantly the effect on global humanity in addressing inequality.  Kendi is attempting to re-focus thinking away from the commonly understood terms such as “race conscious” and “race neutral” to redefine all policies, attitudes and laws that, whilst are race-free in their construct, their impact imparts inequality to someone, somewhere.

Based on This Reading, what makes a Definition Clear and Effective?

This is a deep work: expanding on the above and in my opinion, Kendi is suggesting that society needs to look deeper when labelling race/discrimination tags.  When a law or policy is considered by the masses of the enlightened to be “race neutral” (say) and therefore acceptable, is it in effect?  Applying this filter can potentially allow what is presently considered “positive discrimination” to be acceptable as its effect is to redress the balance against discrimination and therefore racism.  Positive discrimination is largely frowned upon.  By definition, in its application, someone is disadvantaged and it is seen as draconian as it departs from a society based on a meritocracy.

 

These are difficult concepts and Kendi himself states from the outset (at para 1, Ref A) he himself is on a “still-ongoing journey” in being an antiracist.  Kendi concedes that as time changes, situations change or are different so will the activities and attitudes labelled “anti-racist”.  In my humble opinion, he extolls this because these activities will correct the imbalances in humanity.  Further, in my opinion, he justifies this as in time, or in a different situation these measures simply time out due the success of their impact.  He writes (para 19, Ref A) in concession to this argument: “”racist” and “antiracist” are like peelable name tags that are placed and replaced based on what people are doing or not doing”.

 

The constraints of this piece and indeed the undecided mind of this author, limit a definite conclusion to Kendi’s writing.  If it was written to ask people to consider a different dimension when acting say? - it succeeds.  If its intention is to relabel or replace different terms currently used in society, I have no view yet.  This is a scholarly work worthy of thought and some research to determine its usefulness in advancing the debate.  I enjoyed it.

 

S P RATTLEY