No. of Recommendations: 4
We need to point out "that racism right there" when asked that question, and then tackle that issue.
Sure. But a lot of this is terminology.
To some progressives, any institutional framework that has some of "that racism right there" can be labelled as "racist." That's the Kendi formulation - everything is either anti-racist or it's racist. Which means that the U.S. is a racist country. The U.S. has always been a racist country. The U.S. will always be a racist country. Tons and tons of things are "racist" even though they completely lack any racial animus.
The problem is that most people don't use the term "racist" that way. To most people, people or institutions are "racist" if they are specifically acting on and motivated by an intentional effort to deliberately harm a racial minority. If a college offers a boost for admissions of the children of faculty, that's not "racist" to most people - but it would certainly be to some progressives.
So people talk past each other. Certain progressives label an institutional practice as "racist," and the 'normies' think that they're saying that the institutional practice is motivated by current intentional racial animus. That's not what they're saying, but that's what most people think they're saying. Then the 'normies' push back and say that they don't want their kids being told that certain things are "racist," and the progressives think that they're arguing that no racial inequities exist in those things and are thus denying history. Which, again, is not what the 'normies' are saying - they're just saying that there is no current intentional racial animus in those things.
