Voilà:
Would be interesting to know how many of those 100 co-signers were on the actual call, or just read the letter and added their signature.
There is a similar frame of mind when it comes to discussing whether or not a work of fiction is problematic. If one person says a work is problematic, because of perceived racism, ableism, sexism, etc., etc., then it’s considered bad form to disagree. As if the very act of disagreement is tantamount to denying someone’s feelings.
Certainly no more offensive than a Hallo-caust themed one would be.
Is that actually a thing?
And is it for kids?
Sadly no. The woke SJWs of the 1950s just didn’t have a sense of humor about these things.
Well, yeah. Back then it would have been way too soon.
Yeah it would. Or how many watched the video recording after being told about the incident and primed to react.
Here’s the letter from Shino Tanikawa to the committee president, for good measure:
It’s one thing to think one person may have a better idea of what is racist or whatever, by virtue of their experience. It’s quite another to brook no disagreement whatsoever. This is the sort of thing I was talking about.
I asked my wife to read it but she rolled her eyes and refused. So I told her that I thought she was a non-racist and that I could no longer see a way forward unless she agreed to find a path to become an anti-racist, but I could not make her want it. She flashed me and said, “Want this?”. Now I’m not sure what to do.
Lol. There’s a part of this that almost feels religious - authentic anti-racism workshops are supposed to leave you with unresolved feelings and a deep sense of discomfort? The point of this is to do ‘work’ on yourself rather than identify problems and fix them? And reading the right books, doing that work makes you one of the select. Hmmm.
This letter does seem to be demanding a kind of wokeness litmus test or cert (WCAR: Woke Certified Anti-Racist).
Lol indeed. It sure is those woke people that exhibit a complete lack of charity towards other people and the immediate assumption that they have the worst possible motives.
The ‘lol’ was for QuickSilver’s reply.
What do you think of the letter(s) I found for you? Was the journalist fair? If people in the audience were complaining at the time, then it seems more like there was a real issue that needed to be addressed. But I still think the letter was OTT. I’ve experienced in other contexts stuff sent round with ‘look at this terrible thing’ - and without being told what was wrong with it I probably wouldn’t even have noticed. Was something like that going on with the signatures to the letter, or were they all in the audience and came to the same conclusion?
And what about the other letter? Does it make sense for Tanikawa to refuse to collaborate on drafting resolutions until Maron ‘exhibits her commitment to anti-racism work’? I doubt LBJ was an ‘anti-racist’ or woke, but he still helped pass the civil rights act.
And is reading certain books the best or only way to understand the problems in the district and how to improve the schools for black and brown kids, as opposed to say, going out and asking the parents? I don’t think everyone on the committee needs to be following the exact same philosophy in order to do good.
As for the journalist making a mountain out of a molehill, the video the article begins with is a meme being spread by the right, and people like James Lindsay. “Look how ridiculous liberals are.” “See, the woke are the real racists!” So I think it’s quite valuable to be able to see the context and have enough information to make up our own minds. The right won’t stop spreading it whether the article is published or not.
Thanks for finding that letter. And no, the journalist wasn’t fair. The journalist leaves out the at-the-time comments from people who were shocked. He leaves out the part about how people objected to his mocking integration. It doesn’t mention that people saw him, not just “holding” the baby, but repeatedly holding “the child up to the camera.” He says that people are demanding censorship, which what they actually request is that the dude be censured for this kind of comment, and he says " censoring the speech of other elected members is not her prerogative," when really they just ask her not to “tolerate such behavior.”
Over and over he refuses to show “charity” toward the letter-writers, instead assuming “that they have the worst possible motives.”
Of course not. But there’s been a tendency among some White people who want to be less racist to demand that their Black acquaintances educate them, and there’s been some pushback: go read a damn book, stop demanding free anti-racist education from Black acquaintances! Thus the drive to get more White people to read anti-racist books. To turn “some books become more popular than others” into “there’s an orthodoxy and religious movement to treat certain books as sacred texts” is pernicious nonsense.
You’d probably put me in the “woke” crowd. I can’t stand Robin DiAngelo. I really like Ibrim X. Kendi. I’m sure there are other folks that evaluate them differently, and have learned a lot more from other authors. This sort of disagreement and independent evaluation is, of course, almost universal, because that’s how people work. No hive mind, no orthodoxy.
Yup. And this article goes long-form to misrepresent the circumstances to make it seem like the right is correct, when they’re not. It’s terrible.
That’s what I’ve heard all my life. However, it butts up against the narrative that we “need to have difficult conversations.” Reading a book isn’t a conversation. Even listening to people in the media have conversations still isn’t a conversation. Trying to have conversations with people you don’t know online runs the risk of being thought a sealion. Having conversations amongst your White cohort would – quite rightly IMO – run the risk of an echo chamber.
Of course, the reasonable answer is to take part in conversations that are already ongoing on media you are already a part of (whether it be real life, online fora, etc.) without proactively asking people to educate you. But words mean things. I can understand people who are already doing this hearing the words “you need to not shy away from difficult conversations” and, being charitable, think that the speaker is trying to convey new information and taking it to mean they ought to ask people to educate them, even though most people have always said they don’t like being the token explainer in their social circle.
Thesis, antithesis, right?
For me, the synthesis is something like, “Read for background knowledge so that when I come into the conversation I’m not asking 101 questions. Then enter the conversation, ask my hard questions even if they might make me sound like a fool and/or might betray some racist assumptions on my part. Then listen really carefully to what folks say, and try as hard as I can not to retreat into defensiveness, even if someone says something I think is rude or incorrect.”
Not saying I’m always good at it, but that’s what I think makes the most sense.
The more detail we get about this incident the more it becomes clear that there is a history and dynamic in this sad cast of characters that is antagonistic and counterproductive. These don’t seem like people on the same page about much. So it’s not surprising that comments that might otherwise be dismissed get magnified. Is Wrocklage trying to antagonize Tanikawa? Probably. Does Tanikawa come across as self righteous and condescending? She does in my opinion.
More to the point, where does Tanikawa get off sorting people into categories of “racist”, “non-racist”, “anti-racist” (and Huffelpuff, for all we know). Seriously, she needs to fuck off with that and learn to work with people she disagrees with or who she might find somewhat abrasive. The objective of the committee was not to out people not sufficiently committed to fight racism. Her need to voice her moral outrage was as obnoxious as Wroklage’s behavior might have seemed to her. Playing the racist card when there was no racism on display and demanding that others join her in her outrage (or else she’s out!) was a contemptable and obvious attempt to manipulate people into categories, forcing them to agree with her or be labeled.
Straight up, I didn’t read Tanikawa’s letter. I’m willing to agree that there are assholes everywhere, and after reading through this whole sad sordid mess of a dysfunctional committee, a right-wing propaganda machine that acts like these people are the second coming of Pol Pot, and an Atlantic journalist who enables that right-wing propaganda machine, I’m just sick of them all.
So, sure, Tanikawa’s probably a self-righteous jerk, a mean fish in a small pond. News at 11. Turning a story about people being shitty to each other in a powerless committee into a story about the evils of anti-racism is some serious nonsense, though.