PDF Summary:How to Be an Antiracist, by Ibram X. Kendi

In How to Be an Antiracist, author Ibram X. Kendi takes readers through his journey to become an antiracist—a person who believes that all racial groups are equal and supports policies that reduce inequity. Antiracists acknowledge that there are differences between races, but these differences aren’t responsible for inequities—policies are.

Kendi, like many of us, grew up in a racist society and internalized many of its ideas. As a result, despite being Black, he was racist himself throughout much of his life. In How to Be an Antiracist, he describes how he changed his thoughts and actions to become antiracist, and how you can do the same. Our commentary explores how racism became so deeply ingrained in our culture and why it’s so hard for us to let go of our racist ideas on an individual level. We’ll also suggest some specific ways you can implement Kendi’s ideas and start taking antiracist action.

(continued)...

Wilkerson believes it’s important to talk in terms of caste systems rather than racism because racism’s definition has become highly personal: A racist is no longer just someone with biased ideas or who supports biased policies (possibly without knowing it). “Racist” now implies that someone actively hates different groups and is in favor of oppressing them. That relatively new and highly charged definition makes it hard to talk about racism in a productive way—saying that someone said or did something racist now sounds like accusing him or her of being a hateful, cruel person, which instantly shuts down the conversation.

Event #3: Racist Ideas Develop

According to Kendi, in the years and centuries following the publication of Zurara’s book, other scientists, writers, and philosophers began to make generalizations about race. Those generalizations often compared racial groups to one another, which is the foundation of racist ideas—ideas that imply that one race is in some way superior or inferior to another. Those racist ideas are now found all over the world.

(Shortform note: Many of these people echoing and building on Zurara’s ideas weren’t doing so just out of hatred for Black people; they truly believed what they were saying and writing. In Biased, social psychologist Jennifer Eberhardt explains how prominent scientists of the 19th century wrote books and reports “proving” that Black people were an entirely different species from White people and were naturally unintelligent and subservient—what Kendi calls biological racism. But these people believed they were being perfectly objective and merely reporting scientific facts.)

Racism, Antiracism, and the Myth of Neutrality

Now that we know modern racism grew out of selfish and biased policies, not inherent differences between people, we can understand racism and antiracism more precisely.

Kendi defines racism as policies and ideas that cause and maintain racial inequities. Meanwhile, he defines antiracism as policies and ideas that promote racial equity; in short, the opposite of racism. In other words, antiracism means actively working to fix racist policies and fight back against racist ideas.

(Shortform note: Some people dislike the term antiracism—perhaps they’d rather think about creating something or adding to the world, rather than simply being opposed to something else. Such people might prefer the word “diversity.” However, diversity alone doesn’t fix societal imbalances. In fact, some antiracist activists argue that diversity without antiracism actually reinforces racism because it only focuses on the differences between people, and it doesn’t take into account that those differences put some people at a distinct disadvantage in society.)

Note that antiracist isn’t the same thing as “not racist” or neutral toward the idea of race. One of Kendi’s most important points in this book is that it’s not possible to be neutral when it comes to racism—anything that is not antiracist is racist. This is because all policies and ideas either advance equality (and are thus antiracist) or hinder equality (and are thus racist). Trying to remain neutral means supporting the status quo, and the current status quo is unequal—therefore, neutrality is actually racist.

Neutrality May Hide White Fragility

Suggestions like this one of Kendi's—that being passively "not racist" is, itself, racist, and that each of us needs to be actively antiracist—sometimes triggers a phenomenon known as “White fragility.” In her book of the same name, Robin DiAngelo describes White fragility as White people becoming defensive or angry when confronted with the idea of systemic racism and the fact that they might be complicit in it.

White fragility comes from two sources: First, White people fear overturning the status quo because they benefit from it. Replacing racist policies with antiracist ones would take away their societal advantages. Second, White people become upset at the idea that they might be helping to uphold societal racism.

For these reasons, DiAngelo says that White people—even very progressive ones—often fall into patterns of White fragility in order to protect their own reputations and feelings. One such method of protecting themselves is to avoid the topic of race entirely by claiming neutrality toward race, or “color blindness.”

Step #2: Become Aware of Subtly Racist Ideas You Might Be Supporting

Like Kendi, most of us live in a society permeated with racist policies and racist ideas. All of us internalize these ideas to some extent, and a large part of becoming antiracist is reflecting on our beliefs and recognizing what racist ideas we hold.

There are many different types of racism, each based on different racist ideas:

Ethnic Bias: Racism Based on Nationality

Ethnic bias is a combination of racist policies that cause racial inequities between racialized ethnic groups. These policies are supported by racist ideas about the differences between racialized ethnic groups, the main idea being the belief that there’s a hierarchy within races—that certain ethnic groups within a race are better or worse than others within the same race.

Ethnic Racism in America

While people generally think of racism as referring to skin color, ethnic racism can affect people of any color. For example, near the end of the 19th century, the US experienced a surge of anti-Italian racism.

The late 1800s saw a large influx of Italian and Sicilian immigrants. In many cases, those people were viewed as somehow different from people born in America. Furthermore, people blamed them for taking jobs from “real” Americans. Magazines cast Italians as stupid, violent, and childish, or accused them of trying to spread anarchy and socialism in America.

In 1891, this ethnic racism led to one of the largest mass lynchings in US history, when a mob broke into a New Orleans jail and killed 11 Italian people.

Colorism: Racism Based on Skin Color

Kendi defines colorism as a combination of racist policies and ideas that cause and maintain racial inequities between Light and Dark people, with the central belief being that Light people are superior to Dark people. In other words, the closer someone is to looking White, the better.

Note that “Light” and “Dark” refer to the varying skin colors of people of color. Light people have straighter hair and lighter skin, but they aren’t White. Dark people have bigger noses and lips, kinky hair, and darker skin. These two groups are made up of people from many nationalities, ethnicities, and races—membership is assigned based only on physical appearance.

(Shortform note: Colorism is still alive and well in the US today. For example, many schools and jobs have policies against curly or kinky hair, which is a common trait among Black people, especially dark-skinned Black people. Even though many people naturally have curly or kinky hair, it’s often deemed “unprofessional” or “inappropriate” for the workplace, so many Black people have to straighten their hair to fit in. California was the first state to ban discrimination against people based on their natural hair, an antiracist policy enacted by the Crown Act of 2019. To date, only 14 out of the 50 US states have passed such laws.)

Anti-White Racism

Kendi defines anti-White racism as the belief that people of European descent are inferior in some way to other racial groups, or the belief that all White people support and uphold racist power structures. Note that the definition of anti-White racism doesn’t include racist policy because there are few, if any, examples of laws and policies that elevate other groups above White people.

Kendi makes the point that anti-White racism is misguided and harmful, just like any other form of racism; racist policies are the problem, not any particular group of people.

(Shortform note: There is some disagreement over the exact definition of racism, so you may encounter experts or educators who say that racism is systemic, not individual. Therefore, they argue, there’s no such thing as anti-White racism because society and policy tend to favor Whites. Others, like Kendi, use racism interchangeably with prejudice or bigotry—a definition that encompasses both individual and societal biases. In Kendi’s framework, anti-White racism does exist in the guise of bigotry aimed at individual White people by individual non-White people.)

Spatial Bias: Racism Directed at Places

So far, we’ve looked at various ways in which racism is directed at people, but racism can also be directed at spaces. Places that are governed or highly populated by racial groups can also be assigned races—a classic example would be the idea of the “ghetto,” a space inhabited mostly by poor Blacks, which is supposedly a dangerous and violent place for others to go. This is spatial bias: racist policies and ideas directed at places, rather than people.

(Shortform note: While in modern times the ghetto is associated with Black people—particularly in America—the first ghettos were designed to house Jews separately from other people. Furthermore, while modern ghettos are largely the result of unequal economic opportunities, those original ghettos were legally mandated and enforced; in other words, Jews were required to live there, rather than driven there by housing prices.)

This type of racism has two different goals. The first goal is to eliminate racialized spaces—in essence, to force those places to assimilate into White culture and take away places where minorities can experience and celebrate their cultures. Kendi argues that these racialized spaces should be protected.

(Shortform note: Racialized spaces in which people of color can be with each other and celebrate their shared experiences are crucial for minorities’ happiness and wellbeing. Such spaces provide places where marginalized people can fully express themselves, without worrying about other people judging them or feeling threatened by them. In short, racialized spaces are places of rest and healing for people who must constantly conform to the expectations of others.)

The second goal is to cause resource inequity between racialized spaces, based on the belief that certain racialized spaces are more deserving of resources than others; for example, supporting wealthy White-majority school districts instead of impoverished Black-majority ones.

In reality, no racialized spaces are any better or worse than others. Inequities are due to policy, not the people who live in or use those spaces, and we should champion policies that aim to restore equity of resources.

(Shortform note: As Kendi notes, racist policies typically provide White spaces with more funding and resources than Black spaces receive—and to correct that imbalance, antiracist policies would require investing more money and resources into Black communities. Since the book’s publication, US representatives have put forward policies that aim to address resource and spatial inequity: for example, the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act. The Act would offer tax credits to finance the development and rehabilitation of buildings in distressed and investment-starved neighborhoods, many of which have large Black populations. Rehabilitating these areas would not only improve local infrastructure but also increase residents’ home values and thus their overall wealth.)

Intersectional Bias: Racism Compounded With Other Prejudices

Finally, intersectional bias is racism made worse by other types of bigotry, such as homophobia or classism—for example, someone who tolerates “successful” Blacks but is terrified of poor Black people, believing them all to be violent criminals. Importantly, for it to be intersectional bias, this person must also be tolerant of poor White people; the person’s prejudiced ideas arise at the intersection of race and class.

Kendi says that because intersectional bias is made up of a combination of racist ideas and classist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic ideas, to be truly antiracist, we must also be anticapitalist, feminist, non-homophobic, and non-transphobic. For example, to believe that Black Lives Matter, we must believe that the lives of all Black people of every class, sexuality, and gender matter.

Resistance to Intersectionality

Intersectionality—the idea that people experience different types of discrimination based on many different parts of their identities—has recently become a hot-button issue in politics, especially in the US. The debate is not over the term itself, as most people agree that it’s an accurate description of society, but rather over how intersectionality could be used socially and politically.

For example, in 2018, conservative pundit Ben Shapiro released a video saying that intersectionality was creating a social hierarchy in which how much your opinion matters is based on how many “oppressed” groups you belong to: non-White races, the LGBTQA+ community, being female, and so on. Shapiro warns that intersectionality is therefore being used as a weapon against heterosexual white men—historically, the least oppressed of any group. In short, he is arguing that intersectionality isn’t just describing oppression but seeking to reverse it by giving more weight to the voices of historically oppressed groups.

Kimberlé Crenshaw, who developed the theory of intersectionality, says that arguments like Shapiro’s also rely on intersectionality being true, but come from the perspective of those who benefit from the current social hierarchy. In other words, Crenshaw believes that people ignore intersectional racism because they’re afraid that recognizing it and working to correct it could take away their societal advantages. They fear that society can only help oppressed groups by harming those who are less oppressed, which was never Crenshaw’s intent.

Step #3: Start Supporting Antiracist Policy

The third step toward becoming antiracist is to start addressing the root cause of racism—policy.

Kendi founded the Antiracist Research and Policy Center, which lays out the following process to work toward ending racial inequity:

Action #1: Acknowledge the True Roots of Inequality

To begin this process, we must first acknowledge that inequality is the result of policy, not people. In other words, don’t blame entire groups like Whites, conservatives, or baby boomers for societal issues; that would be engaging in the same type of bigoted thought that antiracism fights against.

Why Assigning Blame Is the Wrong Approach

Kendi’s first step toward becoming antiracist is to let go of the idea of blaming people, or groups of people, for the problems society faces today. In Meditations, Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius provides some thoughts about why looking for someone to blame for problems is the wrong approach.

First, blame is pointless. In short, there’s nobody to blame—everyone is doing the best they can with the situations they’re in and the knowledge they have. In the case of structural racism, there’s also nobody to blame because our society was built from the ground up around racist ideas and policies; blame for modern-day inequities would have to start with Gomes de Zurara and continue through practically everybody who’s lived since him. Singling out people or groups to blame is arbitrary at best, and racist at worst.

Second, blame is useless. Even if there were a person or group who was clearly at fault, assigning blame wouldn’t solve anything—racist policies and power structures would still be in place. That’s why Kendi says we must attack policies, rather than people.

Action #2: Fight Racist Policies and Promote Antiracist Policies

Second, Kendi says we must acknowledge that racism is intersectional: Homophobia, classism, sexism, and all other forms of bigotry are part of the societal structure of oppression. Therefore, to solve racial inequity, we must create policies that correct all forms of inequity.

To that end, we should look for specific racist policies to fight against and antiracist policies to replace them. For example, if a hospital that serves predominantly Blacks and other minorities receives less funding and assistance than a hospital in a wealthy, predominantly White area, pressure local politicians to fix that imbalance.

As part of this process, determine which individuals or groups have the power to put antiracist policies into place. Get in touch with antiracist lawmakers to promote antiracist policies. Observe the impact those new policies have—if they aren’t having the equalizing effects that you hoped for, then work with those lawmakers to create better ones.

Where Do We Start With Racist and Antiracist Policy?

Racism can seem like an overwhelmingly large and complex issue, and while Kendi thoroughly explains the central problems and large-scale solutions to them, it may be hard for any one person to know how to help. In particular, what specific policies will help to correct systemic racism?

To that end, writer and public speaker Ijeoma Oluo’s book So You Want to Talk About Race suggests three specific types of antiracist policy you could support and push those in power to enact:

• Increasing the minimum wage. A disproportionate number of minorities work minimum wage jobs, so raising it will help to correct the wealth imbalance between races.

• Affirmative action. Affirmative action policies help Black people and other minorities to find employment opportunities that wouldn’t otherwise be open to them.

• Police reform. Black people are much more likely to be victims of police discrimination, harassment, and violence than White people. Therefore, police reforms such as body cams, better training for officers, and clear procedures for filing complaints are crucial antiracist policies.

Action #3: Educate Others About Racist and Antiracist Policies

Finally, since policy ultimately reflects public opinion and public will, Kendi recommends doing what you can to inform people about specific racist policies and antiracist replacements for those policies. Keep it simple—many people won’t be open to changing their entire worldviews but will be willing to hear you out about a particular problem and the proposed solution to it.

Letter From Birmingham Jail: How and Why We Must Fight Inequity

Here, Kendi recommends discussing specific racist and antiracist policies with others to convince them to support antiracist initiatives. But what if the people you speak to are resistant to supporting antiracism, even through policy? How might you convince them that racism is an issue that we should all actively oppose?

One powerful expression of why it’s important for us all to fight injustice—and an argument that might win over those who are resistant to antiracism—comes from Martin Luther King Jr’s Letter from Birmingham Jail. The Letter includes the famous line, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” and goes on to say that our lives are all interconnected: We’re all tied together by a shared country, a shared lifetime, and therefore a shared destiny. In fact, King went one step further than Kendi, saying that harming one marginalized group doesn’t just harm all marginalized groups, but all people.

It’s unclear whether King meant that such behavior will harm all people physically and economically, since oppressed people can’t contribute to society as effectively, or whether accepting injustice would harm us spiritually (as King was a very religious man). Either way, King was urging Americans to see themselves as a single people, rather than as a collection of different groups. This call for unity, and framing of oppression as a universal problem, may encourage otherwise resistant people to join the antiracist cause.

Letter from Birmingham Jail also lays out King’s methods of nonviolent protest and political pressure, which he called direct action. His tactics included marches, sit-ins, and civil disobedience: knowingly breaking unjust laws and peacefully accepting the punishment for doing so. The goal of direct action is, ultimately, to create political pressure: to create situations that are not dangerous to anyone but are impossible for White people to ignore. Such action also aims to show White sympathizers that protesters are being attacked and persecuted for their nonviolent action. Ultimately, King hoped that his demonstrations would win people over and get them to add their voices to the ongoing calls for justice.