“When something is filthy, you either clean it up or throw it out. You clean it up if it is something of value to you, and it is not irreparable.”
Yes. An apt metaphor. Why do we keep eating this vomit?
I think of men like Idi Amin, whose Asian victims Canada received when he expelled them. Americans see one brand of racial essentialism and the world is filled with them, many brands, as we both know.
Race is a terrible terrible idea.
I am mixed race, a liminal creature racially speaking, and I’m glad because I’m excluded from this cultish identitarianism seemingly predicated on some perceived essentialism linked to melanin levels.
Has this devolved into a cult? A social contagion? Sometimes I wonder.
David Livingstone Smith’s essay leverages vivid accounts of genocide, slavery, and lynching to build a moral case for discarding the concept of race. While these events are undeniably horrific and deserve remembrance, the emotional intensity of their presentation serves more than just historical reflection—it functions as rhetorical leverage.
The relentless listing of atrocities creates a psychological overwhelm that may shut down critical engagement.
By equating race with filth and irredeemability, Smith leaves little room for nuanced thought or alternative perspectives.
Readers may feel compelled to agree not because of reasoned argument, but out of emotional guilt or fear of appearing complicit.
This approach risks weaponizing generational pain to enforce a singular philosophical conclusion, rather than inviting thoughtful dialogue.
Emotional appeals are powerful, but when used without balance, they can become manipulative. Honor pain without weaponizing it: Use history to inform, not to coerce.
Undermining healing by denying the possibility of reclaiming racial identity as a source of pride and resistance. Lastly, Recognize that communities have transformed racial identity into tools of resilience and justice.
Am I wrong in thinking cultural ghettos rather than genes feeds into racism. Short step from that to saying the West experienced the enlightenment, and are more advanced / progressive compared to cultures that believe still believe in genital mutilation, arranged marriages or give religious leaders political power - but some of that happens in 'the west'. Also, we talk about 'the south' , 'the west', 'developing countries'. Is that building barriers and stereotypes too? I think the cultural side is complex - we distrust those who are not like us, even if they live over the road.
I think that this is very often covertly biological. "They" are like that because they are inherently defective, animalistic, primitive, etc, and "we" are like this because we are a higher form of life. These beliefs are very often not stated explicitly, because they are no longer socially acceptable, but they often lurk not too far beneath the surface.
YES...thank you for saying this so clearly.
“When something is filthy, you either clean it up or throw it out. You clean it up if it is something of value to you, and it is not irreparable.”
Yes. An apt metaphor. Why do we keep eating this vomit?
I think of men like Idi Amin, whose Asian victims Canada received when he expelled them. Americans see one brand of racial essentialism and the world is filled with them, many brands, as we both know.
Race is a terrible terrible idea.
I am mixed race, a liminal creature racially speaking, and I’m glad because I’m excluded from this cultish identitarianism seemingly predicated on some perceived essentialism linked to melanin levels.
Has this devolved into a cult? A social contagion? Sometimes I wonder.
David Livingstone Smith’s essay leverages vivid accounts of genocide, slavery, and lynching to build a moral case for discarding the concept of race. While these events are undeniably horrific and deserve remembrance, the emotional intensity of their presentation serves more than just historical reflection—it functions as rhetorical leverage.
The relentless listing of atrocities creates a psychological overwhelm that may shut down critical engagement.
By equating race with filth and irredeemability, Smith leaves little room for nuanced thought or alternative perspectives.
Readers may feel compelled to agree not because of reasoned argument, but out of emotional guilt or fear of appearing complicit.
This approach risks weaponizing generational pain to enforce a singular philosophical conclusion, rather than inviting thoughtful dialogue.
Emotional appeals are powerful, but when used without balance, they can become manipulative. Honor pain without weaponizing it: Use history to inform, not to coerce.
Undermining healing by denying the possibility of reclaiming racial identity as a source of pride and resistance. Lastly, Recognize that communities have transformed racial identity into tools of resilience and justice.
Yes. I love this idea.
Looking forward to reaching this article next time I teach Philosophy of Gender and Race!
Yay!
Am I wrong in thinking cultural ghettos rather than genes feeds into racism. Short step from that to saying the West experienced the enlightenment, and are more advanced / progressive compared to cultures that believe still believe in genital mutilation, arranged marriages or give religious leaders political power - but some of that happens in 'the west'. Also, we talk about 'the south' , 'the west', 'developing countries'. Is that building barriers and stereotypes too? I think the cultural side is complex - we distrust those who are not like us, even if they live over the road.
I think that this is very often covertly biological. "They" are like that because they are inherently defective, animalistic, primitive, etc, and "we" are like this because we are a higher form of life. These beliefs are very often not stated explicitly, because they are no longer socially acceptable, but they often lurk not too far beneath the surface.