The Asymmetry of Racial Discourse




No political topic can turn friends into strangers and strangers into enemies as predictably, swiftly and decisively as that of race in America.

A recent conversation with friends went sour after I asserted that racism itself can’t explain the persistence of racial inequality in the country. The psychological and moral tone of the conversation shifted tectonically and we became awkwardly conscious of the optics of discussing this issue as three white males ensconced in relative comfort and security. What followed was a prolonged ear-beating about the continuing prevalence of racism and white privilege. I had to convince people whom I’ve known for most of my life that I wasn’t a racist or unconsciously supported a system of racial inequality.

It all felt so rehearsed, impersonal and surreal, as though we were each acting out our prescribed roles in a larger drama that had been determined by the momentum of history. In this tragicomedy, I was the bad white who didn’t understand racism and my friends were the good whites putting me in touch with the latent knowledge of my unearned advantages in life. Stranger still, it felt as though each of us were more preoccupied with staving off the underlying moral terror of being associated with the evils of historical oppression, than debating an important political issue. But how can any progress be made on the racial front when close friends, in private, can’t even bring themselves to discuss the issues openly without censoring each other for perceived transgressions?

This anecdote speaks to the theatricality of racial discourse in America and the interpersonal contortions compelled by the prevailing narrative on race.

The Prevailing Narrative

This narrative goes as follows. Race is an invention of the west, constructed to vindicate the economic exploitation of nonwhite groups; the cultural phenomenon of racism is the inevitable outgrowth of this invention, designed to justify the elevated social status of white populations. Although the civil rights revolution brought about some noteworthy changes, racism lives on in tropes, stereotypes, stigmas and implicit associations, manifested in social policy. In addition to the intergenerational injustices of slavery and Jim Crow, these forces wholly explain present inequalities that appear as racial disparities of outcome.

The logic suggests that, if not for the subjugation of nonwhite groups, there would be no America to speak of. All the nation’s wealth and power—of which whites have been the foremost beneficiaries—was the result of the exploitation of people of color. And if white privilege is a direct historical consequence of minority disadvantage, it is incumbent on whites to come to terms with the costs of their historic privilege, take greater responsibility for racial inequity and set about dismantling systemic racism by extracting racist people and ideas from our institutions and expanding the concept of racism to encompass a wider scope of offenses. When there is basic parity between blacks and whites on various socioeconomic metrics, we will finally have taken account of our original sin, exorcised the source of our collective guilt and can move on to other issues.

There is a certain internal coherence to this narrative. It includes a diagnosis of the problem (historical racism and its present implications), a methodology to fix it (acknowledging privilege/oppression and offsetting bias) and a terminus at which point it will be resolved (racial equity). It is crucial to understand why so many people feel compelled by these ideas and can identify with the moral vision guiding them. Bringing the unconscious elements of this narrative to light may help tame its excesses.

The Alternative Narrative

A number of commentators and analysts, many of them black and well to the left of center, have noted the fallacies, inconsistencies, hyperboles and discrepancies embedded within this story.

Thomas Sowell has argued that disparities between ethnic groups are the norm rather than the exception, and that the need to explain racial disparities in terms of justice, rather than as a result of underlying social conditions, is a misguided attempt to create a nonexistent order from the chaos of the cosmos. Coleman Hughes has expanded Sowell’s work on the disparity fallacy by arguing in favor of cultural explanations for present inequalities, which allow for greater black autonomy, and against the left’s stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge racial progress. John McWhorter has long argued that anti-racism has become a secular church bearing all of the motifs of religious faith—atonement, heresy, original sin, judgment day, sainthood—encouraging a cult of victimhood, which discourages blacks from meeting their true potential. Glenn Loury has discussed the chasm between elite intellectual rhetoric about race and the lived experience of poor blacks in crime-ridden inner city neighborhoods. Thomas Chatterton Williams has made the case that today’s racial activism mirrors certain white supremacist beliefs by tacitly presuming that the fate of black Americans remains in the hands of all-powerful decision-making whites. And Shelby Steele has discussed the moral and psychological excesses of post-civil rights liberalism, which sacrifices national unity and colorblind principles at the altar of white guilt.

These views have shaped an alternative narrative about race in America, which emphasizes humanist ideals, individual self-determination and political pragmatism over intertemporal racial justice. In this telling, since the demise of legalized segregation in the 1960s, Americans have been incentivized to exaggerate the effects of racism in society to explain recurrent socioeconomic inequities between blacks and other groups, either to endow themselves with a sense of virtue and assuage personal insecurities or to dissociate themselves from America’s past sins and appear innocent of historical racism. This has resulted in increasing cultural polarization. By framing issues that impact Americans of all colors—although they may disproportionately harm certain groups—in strictly racial terms, we render necessary compromise anathema and muddy policy issues. Is mass incarceration a problem because it’s racist, for instance, or because the prison system is punitive, brutal and dysfunctional?

We ought to be moving toward a society in which our cultural, political and ethnic identities are less relevant to public life and Americans are socially, economically and morally better off than in the past—as opposed to a society in which racial groups are closer to enjoying a parity of opportunities and outcomes.

Responses to These Two Narratives

It is not obvious which narrative is closer to the truth. But there is an asymmetry in the ways in which media, academia and the broader culture respond to these competing visions. After Coleman Hughes’ testimony before Congress against reparations, notable Twitter users with hundreds of thousands of followers tweeted out pictures of his family and unearthed old posts intended to embarrass and discredit him. Similar responses have met most of the other writers named above.

It would be unthinkable for anything similar to happen the other way round. Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Ibram X Kendi, Michael Eric Dyson and other progressive analysts of race would never be no-platformed or shouted down in public—because they represent the mainstream orthodoxy and awaken many Americans’ need to distance themselves from the brutal history of slavery and Jim Crow. Those championing the counter narrative, however, are often accused of being racists, race traitors or just callous and ignorant. One side receives praise or quiet acquiescence, while the other is routinely stigmatized, anathematized and pathologized.

Yet the counter narrative has become increasingly difficult to ignore due to the widening gap between the moral proprieties of our institutions, enforced from the top down, and the lived reality of generations of Americans emerging from the bottom up—most of whom aren’t identifiably white. Whites will no longer be the majority in America by the middle of the twenty-first century; 60% of Black Americans without college degrees say that racism hasn’t harmed their chances of success in life according to various polls; several dark-skinned ethnic groups outearn white Americans by a significant margin; about 40% of Americans living in poverty are white. This all contradicts the notion that an amorphous white supremacy remains the central organizing principle of American society. Fitting these facts into a narrative of racial oppression is like wrenching a square peg into a round hole.

This disconnect creates an opportunity for far-right and/or ethnonationalist figures, who leverage the incongruities of mainstream discourse to build online audiences, to promote a grand narrative of white victimhood and encourage conspiracy theories.

The progressive narrative about race isn’t going anywhere—nor should it—but it’s sorely in need of a sanity check. We’d all have a deeper grasp of the issue if debates were to happen more openly. 

The conflict of visions about race in America is not a disagreement over facts. It involves deeper questions of national and moral identity—of how we conceive of ourselves and relate to our fellow citizens. While one side contends that America will never be free of its historical legacy until we collectively acknowledge the depths of racism in the country, the other side asserts that we won’t move forward as a nation until we stop blaming each other for past sins. On one side, we have a demand for atonement, and, on the other, for forgiveness. Which is more needed at this moment in history? That’s the question each side must definitively and publicly answer.

If you enjoy our articles, be a part of our growth and help us produce more writing for you:

Related Topics

Samuel Kronen is an independent writer interested in American culture, identity, and race politics.

Like our articles?

Subscribe to our newsletter

You May Also Like
  1. Race theory implicitly assumes that blacks are helpless and need whites to “save” them, which is a racist belief in itself. One can make a good argument that the welfare system instituted in the 1960s destroyed the black family and black culture, creating dependence. Why, if racism is so oppressive, can black immigrants from Africa have a higher average income than whites? Why do Persians who arrived here barely speaking English do so well? It is cultural. The inner city black culture teaches the men in particular that they have no place in white society (black women do much better) and only gangs are their option. As Amy Wax pointed out, if blacks finished school, got married and stayed out of jail (and going to church wouldn’t hurt) they would probably double their income. But Leftists want black culture to be equated with skin color and not to be criticized.

  2. I’ve had to be very careful in navigating these issues as both a university professor and a member of the Unitarian Universalist church — three years ago I had no idea I was joining a church that was “saturated in White Supremacy culture” until the UU Association started pumping Critical Race Theory into its magazine and into the services of local churches!

    The balance I have found is in agreeing that there are some changes that can/should be made both individually and (especially) institutionally, while simply avoiding the rhetoric of self-flagellation. In following this approach I have discovered that most of the “good white people” aren’t actually all that interested in taking concrete steps to remedy the effects of historical, systematic, or institutional racism — mainly they are just interested in talking non-stop about racism. So these people are pretty easily side-stepped, so long as you yourself have worked out your own issues about being white.

    1. Shame on you for submitting to any BS involving Critical Race Theory. They’ll never be satisfied so don’t even bother.

    2. Shame on me? And how are you going to respond if you end up in a mandated diversity training at your place of work where you are basically asked to learn about and agree with teachings that come from Critical Race Theory? Are you going to tell the facilitators that they can “go fuck themselves” and then lose your job and possibly your career? I suspect this is going to be rolled out ever more fully into our culture (especially as liberals gain institutional power in the next few years) and I believe my “middle path” is about the best anyone can hope for.

    3. I appreciate your problem, Boethius, and I understand your compromise. But we can hope for more than a middle path. We should beware of concealing or falsifying our preferences too much and for too long. Even by commenting anonymously here you have already taken a step in the right direction. Rest assured there are many more like you than you may think.

    4. As a Unitarian Universalist you are, no doubt, familiar with the Gadfly Papers controversy. The man who wrote those essays is my minister. He has been put through the wringer by those who want to push the “white supremacy culture” paradigm, both in the UU Association and among a sizable minority of his congregation. I agree with you that you could have your livelihood threatened by refusing to adopt the preferred antiracism agenda put forward by the ideologues: Look at how Bret Weinstein and Heather Heyer were treated at Evergreen State University a few years ago. I am glad that I am retired or I would probably have to face these issues at my workplace. I would probably end up being fired.

  3. I am amazed that this debate in the USA focuses only on racism in the USA. Why not broaden this debate to the rest of the world? White Europeans have been oppressed & enslaved by the following: 1. Arabs & Berbers after the invasion of Visigothic Spain in 711 CE. 2. Turks after the conquest of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, especially after 1453 CE. 3. Mongols after the conquest of the Kievan Rus & the other Russian principalities. 4.Arab & Berbers (Moors) from north Africa raiding trading & fishing ships & coastal communities in Europe from 1492 CE to after 1815 CE. See “White Gold”, a non-fiction history by Giles Milton for information about this last subject.

  4. @johntshea yes sir. yet many sadly butt hurt on this thread from that comment.

  5. Maybe the very worst thing about the currently prevailing politically-correct progressive “racism” narrative is that it increasingly discredits liberalism and progressivism in general, even anti-racism itself, in the public mind, associating liberalism and even plain anti-racism more and more with the politically-correct, “woke” mentality and the “callout culture” in the popular mind. More and more Americans, even in the educated classes, seem to feel these days that if you can’t agree with Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Ibram X Kendi, Michael Eric Dyson, the intersectionalists, and the no-platformers, then you must agree with Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Breitbartm and Fox News–that if you aren’t thrilled by the intersectionalists, no-platformers, and “white privilege” ideologies, you should join the tribe of the folk who would privatize Social Security and the Post Office, abolish Medicare, criminalize abortion, bring back school prayer, build a 1500-mile Berlin Wall along the US-Mexico border. and end gay marriage and the graduated income tax. There seems to be less and less “public space” these days for people (like myself!)who might. for instance, happily go along with an out-and-out Socialist economic agenda (or at least an expanded “welfare state” along Scandinavian lines) while at the same time vigorously rejecting the “white guilt” ideology (as I myself likewise do)!

    1. * More and more Americans, even in the educated classes, seem to feel these days that if you can’t agree with Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Ibram X Kendi, Michael Eric Dyson, the intersectionalists, and the no-platformers, then you must agree with Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Breitbartm and Fox News–that if you aren’t thrilled by the intersectionalists, no-platformers, and “white privilege” ideologies, you should join the tribe of the folk who would privatize Social Security and the Post Office, abolish Medicare…”

      There is something wildly reductive about the bazooka that fired that series of false choices.

    2. Glen Loury’s account of the disparities of outcome by group being down to a gulf in what you could call human capital is by far the most convincing.

      It’s unquestionably true that if you were to unpick the reasons for that gulf, racial prejudice particularly historic race prejudice would obviously play a significant part. Not the only part, but a significant one.

      The key point is that if we woke up tomorrow with all racial prejudice having been eliminated, and even if there was the great reckoning that the ‘people with three names’ (copyright John McWhorter) are calling for, then that gulf in human capital would still be there. No amount of naval gazing on the part of white people is going to change that.

      Changing it is incredibly difficult and incredibly complicated. It will be in part down to public policy, in part down to individuals, in part down to changes of culture and in communities, but only that hard work will ultimately make a difference.

      That so many white people have for various reasons fallen under the sway of the ‘people with three names‘ and Critical race theory in general is at best a divergence and an irrelevance at worst it’s a disaster for all involved.

    3. Right on! Fortunately, we have brave souls such as Coleman Hughes and John McWhorter to contribute rationality to the discussion!

  6. This author describes the verbal battles I have been having with people who insist that I confess my privilege and acknowledge my having benefited from and been complicit in racism. My refusal to comply has caused some to consider me an enemy and is dividing groups across the country who should be working together to advance genuine social justice, including many church organizations and school faculties. Self-flagellation should have died with the Middle Ages, yet it continues in another pernicious form on the political left today.

    1. Just like Marian Elizabeth Hennings, I too am saddened and dismayed that people and groups who could be working together to advance genuine social justice are considered “enemies” because they refuse to confess their “privilege” and acknowledge having “benefitted” from or being “complicit” with racism. Conversely, if I call myself a liberal and an anti-racist, or admit to generally supporting the Democrats in American politics, I find myself all too often lumped together with the “woke” politically-correct “social justice warriors” and “white privilege” ideologues whom I actually abhor almost as much as I abhor the racists, white supremacists, and “Alt-Right’ers.” Again just like Ms, Hennings, I think self-flagellation should have died out with the Middle Ages, as a practice that belongs with ascetic world-denying hellfire-and-brimstone religions and not with people professing to be progressive humanists–it makes me think of the self-flagellating albino Opus Dei monk in “The DaVinci Code” who regularly whips himself bloody with his “cilice” for having indulged in “sinful,” “fleshly” thoughts in-between his holy mission of piously assassinating enemies of the Church!

    2. The Left has always been obsessed with doctrine. From Marx, the Left has constructed vast edifices of theory on very little experimental evidence.

  7. The previous “comment” is an embarrassment, and whoever wrote it should be ashamed of themselves. The writer of the essay was making a good-faith and intelligent attempt to understand an issue of primary importance in America today. Frankly, I don’t know where I stand. Racism is still very, very real in our country, but to say that it is an all-explaining cause of socio-economic inequity is an inadequate explanation. So I guess I do know where I stand. I stand with the writer of this essay, and against the total thoughtlessness of the writer of the comment.

    1. Just FYI, it’s really unclear what “previous” means in a system that shows threaded comments ordered with the most recent thread starters first. It’s best to say “the comment by X” in this case.

    2. @Josh Gidding Sure, racism is real. And your friendly neighborhood leftist is likely the main exponent of such beliefs. Off with you, dolt.

    3. “The previous “comment” is an embarrassment.”

      Only to those who don’t, or don’t want to, really understand what’s popping.

      The massive belligerence/ manipulativeness of most Awoken Ones is, not embarrassing, but monstrous.

      Those who dare to stand up to these monsters should be proud, not embarrassed.

      While I understand Mr. Kronen’s effort at a good-faith and intelligent understanding of this stuff, he ducked facing elephants in the room.

      Racism is “an issue of primary importance in America today…. Racism is still very, very real in our country”. HaHa.

      “Racism” is an issue of primary importance, mostly to those who get off on playing games with their *fluctuating* definition of “racism”, and who live for their **hate** of “Deplorable” whites (i.e. those whites below the Upper Middle class level).

      Such folks are known as Awoken Ones, and are (if possible) shunned by all who have any street smarts.

      Most Dems/ Lefties (esp. the activists) see *white* racism as an issue of primary importance, but have not the slightest problem with racism VS. whites, tho they’ll NEVER admit this.

      The only liberals/ Lefties remotely worth talking to, are those who at least can take some steps, toward admitting what is brutally obvious to street-smart people.

      Those who can’t go near such admissions are, more or less, embarrassments.

  8. You need new friends man lmao

    1. Amen! With “friends” like that, who needs enemies?

Via: https://areomagazine.com/2020/05/11/the-asymmetry-of-racial-discourse/

Related posts


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: