A professor at the University of Calgary gives us a taste of the kind of material presented by the powers-that-be, in their rush to embrace the current dogma that we all inhabit an apparently irredeemable state of racism. From the university's "courageous conversations" about equity, race, systemic racism and anti-racism:
It’s not only public figures like Trump and so on, who constantly deny that they are being racist and claim to be non- or even anti-racist, but ordinary people also, perhaps your friends and your family constantly repeat how “that wasn’t racist” or “I’m not racist.” But I’m suggesting that beyond this well-known denial of racism, what is particular to what I’m calling “not racism” is that it contains a definition of racism, which is constructed negatively through opposition. This definition is characterized by the fact that it denies racialized people’s subjective understanding of what racism is and negates this experience. In this way, “not racism” is what I call a form of discursive racist violence… “Not racism” as a redefinition of racism lends itself to a positivist approach to social science, one that historically has been bound up epistemologically with the idea of race. So “not racism,” I hope to encourage you, is also epistemically racist.
Not racism is epistemically racist. OK. So racism is....epistemically non-racist? Am I doing this right?
People in social sciences and writing clearly... it can't work because if they'll write clearly, people could use it against them.
Posted by: Shir | November 30, 2020 at 11:16 AM