Teed, I'm sharing my opinions about Tim Wise in these comments, not writing a scholarly and thoroughly researched treatise on his writing. That said, in my further opinion, there can be little doubt after reading several of his articles on Medium that he considers an individual's identity as secondary to their racial collective, and ther…
Teed, I'm sharing my opinions about Tim Wise in these comments, not writing a scholarly and thoroughly researched treatise on his writing. That said, in my further opinion, there can be little doubt after reading several of his articles on Medium that he considers an individual's identity as secondary to their racial collective, and therefore he sees individuals as morally interchangeable elements representing their race, color, sex, etc. I judge this as reprehensible. I do evaluate things on a scale, collectivism of this kind ranks a 10 for me.
Nevertheless, I am in complete sympathy with Tim Wise and the victims who suffered the injustice when he writes of examples such as:
"Over and again, kids as young as 8 were hanged, set on fire, and shot by mobs — accused of rape, assault, or merely insulting white girls. Others were killed for allegedly stealing from whites or throwing rocks at them."
For me, the fact that this was white against black is a horror because it is real racism, but it vies in my mind with the horror that these racist white people would grab anyone who was black and punish them for the alleged crimes. This **interchangeability**, this cancellation of individuality, seems to me an equally terrible injustice. But it is an injustice no one seems to focus upon, and I would say it is an injustice that many, (not all but IMO the vast majority of those who say they fight racism from the far left), are actually tolerant and even enthusiastic about when the colors are reversed, and when the colors are not reversed, well they just don't highlight the concept involved because this would undermine the project's constant promotion of collective white guilt.
Tim clearly promotes this too. It is right there in the subtitle to his piece: "If Black and brown children are old enough to experience injustice, white children are old enough to learn about it." He doesn't claim that white children will not be traumatized by stories about the terrible things white people have done. No, he is explicitly saying that black kids were hurt, and therefore it is some kind of collective justice that white kids can learn about it. He just fails to add, "even if it fills them with collective guilt and self-loathing."
In teaching children, one should address a child's mind, not their amygdala. But he makes no such distinction. This is how a teacher knows when a child is old enough. Yes, they can "feel" about many things at a very early age. The proper question is, when are they old enough to think about what they are being told?
Now, here we come to the core issue. Please understand, I am not religious nor a partisan of either or any side. But I believe in repairing damage and in improving life wherever I can. I am therefore very much in favor of MLK's prescription to judge by individual character, not by skin. I favor this not because MLK said it, but because it is true and efficacious. I can see how this actually overcomes racism. I've internalized it as a habit of my own. It's not difficult to understand why this works, and why it is the correct and benevolent view.
Although I have asked numerous times of numerous proponents of todays "anti-racism" how it is supposed to remedy racism, I have never received an answer. The question is dodged, usually by reciting yet another atrocity from the past.
It is clear to me that to overcome racism, we must also jettison collectivism. I would be 100% in favor of a massive horizontal and vertical "anti-racist" project if the content of this project were to elevate individual character above race and color. But the content is clearly, indisputably the opposite of this. It is the elevation of color and race and other immutable collective attributes above individuality. So, I don't just "not love it." I utterly despise it, condemn it and want to see it removed from society at all levels. It is designed to do harm and it will increase and perpetuate racism, possibly to the point of destroying everything else we all depend upon.
Now, regarding your counterpoints where Tim inserts exculpatory passages such as the one you quote above: "we could easily short-circuit such guilt by teaching students about white anti-racist allies from the colonial era to the present. Such persons prove that whites have joined in solidarity with people of color to fight racism. This, in turn, undermines the notion that whites are inherently oppressive, providing an antidote to any potential white shame."
I have three things to say here. Please bear with me, I will try to be concise:
1) He first denies the possibility: "But aside from how untrue the allegation is — no curricular material suggests such a thing..." Then he says effectively, but if this were to be the case, "we could easily [remedy it]..." But how would this work in practice? Would his "we" ride their time machine back to those traumatized classes and insert this helpful bit of knowledge? He proposes a remedy for a problem he denies exists, a remedy that would have to be applied at the time the problem is created. I'm thinking you, Teed, of all people can see the flaw here.
2) Yes, and how mendaciously "generous" of him. He doesn't deny that the white kids should feel guilty. Instead, he offers them a path to redemption if they will emulate some unspecified white anti-racist allies. He offers that they can assuage their guilt by serving this particular cause. I mean, how much clearer can his actual methods and motives be? He is doing what any religion does, secular or mystical. He advocates that guilt should be induced, and offers a path to redemption that involves serving the cause he supports. There is even a collection plate, eventually, when they grow up and are able to make donations, just as many guilt-ridden white adults already do.
3) Here is the most devious aspect of his writing though. You are quite right that he frequently inserts contradictory "escape hatches" to maintain a level of deniability against accusations such as I make with my opinions about him. I don't know if you have come across it, but there was one article of his a while back where he discussed CRT and offered that before he had heard of CRT he'd been thoroughly involved
with Critical Theory, which is the Marxist "everything is class struggle" view that CRT's "everything is racist" praxis is modelled upon. So he goes back to Marcuse and all those frustrated Marxists who had, like the Millerites and other adventists, waited in vain for the "inevitable" collapse of capitalism. He's been teaching against individuality and individual freedom and free markets and all else for decades. Part of that whole program holds that reason, logic and consistency must take a back seat to the progress of history. In other words, one says what one needs to say to advance "the cause," and if saying the opposite will sometimes also advance the cause, one says that too, with no concern of contradiction.
So yes, he does sprinkle in some escape hatches here and there. I therefore judge him by the preponderance of his writings, which I evaluate as fully collectivist and racist. As to why a white man is doing this, it's pretty obvious: His color gives him legitimacy, and he delights in placing himself on morally higher ground by scolding other whites. And "it's a living."
He is of course not consistently collectivist either. It is not possible to be consistently collectivist. The game is to be it and to deny being it. The winners are those who do this trick the best.
I'd not bother being annoyed by him, except that I have grandchildren who are going through the education system that his ideas, and yes, those of his "ilk," (by which I mean the many individuals who choose to agree with him), are currently dominating. I don't believe any of these anti-CRT or whatever laws will make any difference. The destructive messaging will be conveyed by those teachers who agree with Tim in the form of tone of voice, selective emphasis and random remarks.
Finally, and not surprisingly, in the article of his at instance here and actually in most of his writing, he fails to consider the effect of such teaching upon the black children in today's classrooms. I know I am not supposed to be able to speak for those of differently colored skin, but the effect of being told that they are surrounded and outnumbered by white people who will inevitably suppress them and oppress them and that their lives will be a constant failing struggle against "whiteness" will be profoundly damaging to them. It is understandable that many of them will internalize a distrust and even a hatred of white people. It is understandable that friendships between white and black children, (which do arise and which adults should be learning from), will be stressed and likely dissolved by this teaching.
How much better it would be if both black and white kids -- all kids -- would be taught that they are individuals first, and that it is their individual ideas and actions that matter in the world and that define who they are, and that this individualistic definition of self should be understood as being of far greater significance than are any visible differences between them. Were this what teachers were teaching, I would have no concern about traumas or broken friendships or psychological problems like hate and guilt and collectivism and **racism** arising from the classrooms of America.
I will agree with Kendi on this one point: You are either with this or against this. There is no middle ground. This is because it is being forced upon us by a massive, well-funded ideological coup working its way through all of our institutions. We either fight it, or we will be engulfed by it. This is the choice. Choose.
Teed, I'm sharing my opinions about Tim Wise in these comments, not writing a scholarly and thoroughly researched treatise on his writing. That said, in my further opinion, there can be little doubt after reading several of his articles on Medium that he considers an individual's identity as secondary to their racial collective, and therefore he sees individuals as morally interchangeable elements representing their race, color, sex, etc. I judge this as reprehensible. I do evaluate things on a scale, collectivism of this kind ranks a 10 for me.
Nevertheless, I am in complete sympathy with Tim Wise and the victims who suffered the injustice when he writes of examples such as:
"Over and again, kids as young as 8 were hanged, set on fire, and shot by mobs — accused of rape, assault, or merely insulting white girls. Others were killed for allegedly stealing from whites or throwing rocks at them."
For me, the fact that this was white against black is a horror because it is real racism, but it vies in my mind with the horror that these racist white people would grab anyone who was black and punish them for the alleged crimes. This **interchangeability**, this cancellation of individuality, seems to me an equally terrible injustice. But it is an injustice no one seems to focus upon, and I would say it is an injustice that many, (not all but IMO the vast majority of those who say they fight racism from the far left), are actually tolerant and even enthusiastic about when the colors are reversed, and when the colors are not reversed, well they just don't highlight the concept involved because this would undermine the project's constant promotion of collective white guilt.
Tim clearly promotes this too. It is right there in the subtitle to his piece: "If Black and brown children are old enough to experience injustice, white children are old enough to learn about it." He doesn't claim that white children will not be traumatized by stories about the terrible things white people have done. No, he is explicitly saying that black kids were hurt, and therefore it is some kind of collective justice that white kids can learn about it. He just fails to add, "even if it fills them with collective guilt and self-loathing."
In teaching children, one should address a child's mind, not their amygdala. But he makes no such distinction. This is how a teacher knows when a child is old enough. Yes, they can "feel" about many things at a very early age. The proper question is, when are they old enough to think about what they are being told?
Now, here we come to the core issue. Please understand, I am not religious nor a partisan of either or any side. But I believe in repairing damage and in improving life wherever I can. I am therefore very much in favor of MLK's prescription to judge by individual character, not by skin. I favor this not because MLK said it, but because it is true and efficacious. I can see how this actually overcomes racism. I've internalized it as a habit of my own. It's not difficult to understand why this works, and why it is the correct and benevolent view.
Although I have asked numerous times of numerous proponents of todays "anti-racism" how it is supposed to remedy racism, I have never received an answer. The question is dodged, usually by reciting yet another atrocity from the past.
It is clear to me that to overcome racism, we must also jettison collectivism. I would be 100% in favor of a massive horizontal and vertical "anti-racist" project if the content of this project were to elevate individual character above race and color. But the content is clearly, indisputably the opposite of this. It is the elevation of color and race and other immutable collective attributes above individuality. So, I don't just "not love it." I utterly despise it, condemn it and want to see it removed from society at all levels. It is designed to do harm and it will increase and perpetuate racism, possibly to the point of destroying everything else we all depend upon.
Now, regarding your counterpoints where Tim inserts exculpatory passages such as the one you quote above: "we could easily short-circuit such guilt by teaching students about white anti-racist allies from the colonial era to the present. Such persons prove that whites have joined in solidarity with people of color to fight racism. This, in turn, undermines the notion that whites are inherently oppressive, providing an antidote to any potential white shame."
I have three things to say here. Please bear with me, I will try to be concise:
1) He first denies the possibility: "But aside from how untrue the allegation is — no curricular material suggests such a thing..." Then he says effectively, but if this were to be the case, "we could easily [remedy it]..." But how would this work in practice? Would his "we" ride their time machine back to those traumatized classes and insert this helpful bit of knowledge? He proposes a remedy for a problem he denies exists, a remedy that would have to be applied at the time the problem is created. I'm thinking you, Teed, of all people can see the flaw here.
2) Yes, and how mendaciously "generous" of him. He doesn't deny that the white kids should feel guilty. Instead, he offers them a path to redemption if they will emulate some unspecified white anti-racist allies. He offers that they can assuage their guilt by serving this particular cause. I mean, how much clearer can his actual methods and motives be? He is doing what any religion does, secular or mystical. He advocates that guilt should be induced, and offers a path to redemption that involves serving the cause he supports. There is even a collection plate, eventually, when they grow up and are able to make donations, just as many guilt-ridden white adults already do.
3) Here is the most devious aspect of his writing though. You are quite right that he frequently inserts contradictory "escape hatches" to maintain a level of deniability against accusations such as I make with my opinions about him. I don't know if you have come across it, but there was one article of his a while back where he discussed CRT and offered that before he had heard of CRT he'd been thoroughly involved
with Critical Theory, which is the Marxist "everything is class struggle" view that CRT's "everything is racist" praxis is modelled upon. So he goes back to Marcuse and all those frustrated Marxists who had, like the Millerites and other adventists, waited in vain for the "inevitable" collapse of capitalism. He's been teaching against individuality and individual freedom and free markets and all else for decades. Part of that whole program holds that reason, logic and consistency must take a back seat to the progress of history. In other words, one says what one needs to say to advance "the cause," and if saying the opposite will sometimes also advance the cause, one says that too, with no concern of contradiction.
So yes, he does sprinkle in some escape hatches here and there. I therefore judge him by the preponderance of his writings, which I evaluate as fully collectivist and racist. As to why a white man is doing this, it's pretty obvious: His color gives him legitimacy, and he delights in placing himself on morally higher ground by scolding other whites. And "it's a living."
He is of course not consistently collectivist either. It is not possible to be consistently collectivist. The game is to be it and to deny being it. The winners are those who do this trick the best.
I'd not bother being annoyed by him, except that I have grandchildren who are going through the education system that his ideas, and yes, those of his "ilk," (by which I mean the many individuals who choose to agree with him), are currently dominating. I don't believe any of these anti-CRT or whatever laws will make any difference. The destructive messaging will be conveyed by those teachers who agree with Tim in the form of tone of voice, selective emphasis and random remarks.
Finally, and not surprisingly, in the article of his at instance here and actually in most of his writing, he fails to consider the effect of such teaching upon the black children in today's classrooms. I know I am not supposed to be able to speak for those of differently colored skin, but the effect of being told that they are surrounded and outnumbered by white people who will inevitably suppress them and oppress them and that their lives will be a constant failing struggle against "whiteness" will be profoundly damaging to them. It is understandable that many of them will internalize a distrust and even a hatred of white people. It is understandable that friendships between white and black children, (which do arise and which adults should be learning from), will be stressed and likely dissolved by this teaching.
How much better it would be if both black and white kids -- all kids -- would be taught that they are individuals first, and that it is their individual ideas and actions that matter in the world and that define who they are, and that this individualistic definition of self should be understood as being of far greater significance than are any visible differences between them. Were this what teachers were teaching, I would have no concern about traumas or broken friendships or psychological problems like hate and guilt and collectivism and **racism** arising from the classrooms of America.
I will agree with Kendi on this one point: You are either with this or against this. There is no middle ground. This is because it is being forced upon us by a massive, well-funded ideological coup working its way through all of our institutions. We either fight it, or we will be engulfed by it. This is the choice. Choose.