The difference between being "not racist" and antiracist

Cloe Shasha: So welcome, Ibram,

and thank you so much for joining us.

Ibram X. Kendi: Well thank you, Cloe,
and thank you Whitney,

and thank you everyone
for joining this conversation.

And so, a few weeks ago,

on the same day we learned
about the brutal murder of George Floyd,

we also learned that
a white woman in Central Park

who chose not to leash her dog

and was told by a black man nearby
that she needed to leash her dog,

instead decided
to threaten this black male,

instead decided to call the police

and claim that her life
was being threatened.

And of course, when we learned
about that through a video,

many Americans were outraged,

and this woman, Amy Cooper,

ended up going on national TV

and saying,

like countless other Americans have said
right after they engaged in a racist act,

"I am not racist."

And I say countless Americans

because when you really think
about the history of Americans

expressing racist ideas,

supporting racist policies,

you're really talking about
a history of people

who have claimed they're not racist,

because everyone claims
that they're not racist,

whether we're talking about
the Amy Coopers of the world,

whether we're talking about Donald Trump,

who, right after he said
that majority-black Baltimore

is a rat and rodent-infested mess
that no human being would want to live in,

and he was challenged as being racist,

he said, actually, I'm the least racist
person anywhere in the world.

And so really the heartbeat
of racism itself

has always been denial,

and the sound of that heartbeat

has always been, "I'm not racist."

And so what I'm trying to do with my work

is to really get Americans
to eliminate the concept of "not racist"

from their vocabulary,

and realize we're either being racist

or anti-racist.

We're either expressing ideas
that suggest certain racial groups

are better or worse than others,

superior or inferior than others.

We're either being racist,

or we're being anti-racist.

We're expressing notions
that the racial groups are equals,

despite any cultural
or even ethnic differences.

We're either supporting
policies that are leading

to racial inequities and injustice,

like we saw in Louisville,
where Breonna Taylor was murdered,

or we're supporting policies
and pushing policies

that are leading to justice
and equity for all.

And so I think we should be very clear

about whether we're
expressing racist ideas,

about whether we're
supporting racist policies,

and admit when we are,

because to be anti-racist

is to admit when
we expressed a racist idea,

is to say, you know what?

When I was doing that in Central Park,

I was indeed being racist.

But I'm going to change.

I'm going to strive to be anti-racist.

And to be racist

is to constantly deny

the racial inequities
that pervade American society,

to constantly deny the racist ideas
that pervade American minds.

And so I want to built
a just and equitable society,

and the only way we're going
to even begin that process

is if we admit our racism

and start building an anti-racist world.

Thank you.

CS: Thank you so much for that.

You know, your book,
"How To Be An Anti-Racist,"

has become a bestseller
in light of what's been happening,

and you've been speaking a bit

to the ways in which
anti-racism and racism

are the only two polar opposite ways
to hold a view on races.

I'm curious if you
could talk a little bit more

about what the basic tenets
of anti-racism are,

for people who aren't as familiar with it
in terms of how they can be anti-racist.

IXK: Sure. And so I mentioned in my talk

that the heartbeat of racism is denial,

and really the heartbeat
of anti-racism is confession,

is the recognition

that to grow up in this society

is to literally at some point in our lives

probably internalize
ideas that are racist,

ideas that suggest certain racial groups
are better or worse than others,

and because we believe
in racial hierarchy,

because Americans have been
systematically taught

that black people are more dangerous,

that black people are more criminal-like,

when we live in a society
where black people

are 40 percent of the national
incarcerated population,

that's going to seem normal to people.

When we live in a society

in a city like Minneapolis

where black people
are 20 percent of the population

but more than 60 percent of the people
being subjected to police shootings,

it's going to seem normal.

And so to be anti-racist

is to believe that there's nothing wrong

or inferior about black people
or any other racial group.

There's nothing dangerous

about black people
or any other racial group.

And so when we see these
racial disparities all around us,

we see them as abnormal,

and then we start to figure out, OK,
what policies are behind

so many black people
being killed by police.

What policies are behind
so many Latinx people

being disproportionately
infected with COVID?

How can I be a part of the struggle

to upend those policies and replace them
with more anti-racist policies?

Whitney Pennington Rodgers:
And so it sounds like

you do make that distinction, then,
between not racist and anti-racist.

I guess, could you talk a little bit
more about that and break that down?

What is the difference between the two?

IXK: In the most simplest way,

a not racist is a racist who is in denial,

and an anti-racist is someone

who is willing to admit the times
in which they are being racist,

and who is willing to recognize

the inequities and
the racial problems of our society,

and who is willing to challenge
those racial inequities

by challenging policy.

And so I'm saying this because
literally slaveholders, slave traders,

imagine that their ideas
in our terms were not racist.

They would say things like,

"Black people are the cursed
descendants of Ham,

and they're cursed forever
into enslavement."

This isn't, "I'm not racist."

This is, "God's law."

They would say things, like, you know,

"Based on science, based on ethnology,

based on natural history,

black people by nature

are predisposed to slavery and servility.

This is nature's law. I'm not racist.

I'm actually doing what nature
said I'm supposed to be doing."

And so this construct of being not racist
and denying one's racism

goes all the way back
to the origins of this country.

CS: Yeah.

And why do you think it has been so hard

for some people now to still accept
that neutrality is not enough

when it comes to racism?

IXK: I think because it takes
a lot of work to be anti-racist.

You have to be very vulnerable, right?

You have to be willing to admit
that you were wrong.

You have to be willing to admit

that if you have more,
if you're white, for instance,

and you have more, it may not be
because you are more.

You have to admit that,
yeah, you've worked hard

potentially in your life,

but you've also had certain advantages

which provided you with opportunities

that other people did not have.

You have to admit those things,

and it's very difficult

for people to be publicly,

or even privately, self-critical.

I think it's also the case of,

and I should have probably led with this,

how people define "racist."

And so people tend to define "racist"

as, like, a fixed category,

as an identity.

This is essential to who a person is.

Someone becomes a racist.

And so therefore,

and then they also connect a racist
with a bad, evil person.

They connect a racist
with a Ku Klux Klansman or woman.

And they're like,
"I'm not in the Ku Klux Klan,

I'm not a bad person,

and I've done good things in my life.

I've done good things to people of color.

And so therefore I can't be racist.

I'm not that. That's not my identity.

But that's actually not
how we should be defining racist.

Racist is a descriptive term.

It describes what a person
is saying or doing in any given moment,

and so when a person in one moment

is expressing a racist idea,

in that moment they are being racist
when they're saying black people are lazy.

If in the very next moment

they're appreciating the cultures
of native people,

they're being anti-racist.

WPR: And we're going to get
to some questions

from our community in a moment,

but I think when a lot of people hear
this idea that you're putting forward,

this idea of anti-racism,

there's this feeling
that this is something

that only concerns the white community.

And so could you speak a little bit
to how the black community

and non-white, other ethnic minorities

can participate in and think about
this idea of anti-racism?

IXK: Sure.

So if white Americans
commonly say, "I'm not racist,"

people of color commonly say,
"I can't be racist

because I'm a person of color."

And then some people of color
say they can't be racist

because they have no power.

And so, first and foremost,

what I've tried to do in my work
is to push back against this idea

that people of color have no power.

There's nothing more disempowering

to say, or to think, as a person of color,

than to say you have no power.

People of color have long utilized
the most basic power

that every human being has,

and that's the power to resist

racist policies,

that's the power to resist
a racist society.

But if you're a person of color,

and you believe that people
coming here from Honduras and El Salvador

are invading this country,

you believe that these Latinx immigrants

are animals and rapists,

then you're certainly not,
if you're black or Asian or native,

going to be a part of a struggle

to defend Latinx immigrants,

to recognize that Latinx immigrants
have as much to give to this country

as any other group of people,

you're going to view these people
as "taking away your jobs,"

and so therefore you're going
to support racist rhetoric,

you're going to support racist policies,

and even though that is probably
going to be harming you,

in other words, it's going to be harming,

if you're black, immigrants
coming from Haiti and Nigeria,

if you're Asian, immigrants
coming from India.

So I think it's critically important
for even people of color

to realize they have the power to resist,

and when people of color
view other people of color as the problem,

they're not going
to view racism as the problem.

And anyone who is not viewing
racism as the problem

is not being anti-racist.

CS: You touched on this a bit
in your beginning talk here,

but you've talked about how
racism is the reason

that black communities
and communities of color

are systematically
disadvantaged in America,

which has led to so many more deaths
from COVID-19 in those communities.

And yet the media is often
placing the blame on people of color

for their vulnerability to illness.

So I'm curious, in line with that,

what is the relationship
between anti-racism

and the potential for systemic change?

IXK: I think it's a direct relationship,

because when you believe
and have consumed racist ideas,

you're not going to be even believe
change is necessary

because you're going to believe
that racial inequality is normal.

Or, you're not going
to believe change is possible.

In other words, you're going to believe
that the reason why black people

are being killed by police
at such high rates

or the reason why Latinx people
are being infected at such high rates

is because there's
something wrong with them,

and nothing can be changed.

And so you wouldn't even
begin to even see the need

for systemic structural change,

let alone be a part of the struggle
for systemic structural change.

And so, to be anti-racist, again,

is to recognize

that there's only two causes
of racial inequity:

either there's something
wrong with people,

or there's something wrong
with power and policy.

And if you realize that there's
nothing wrong with any group of people,

and I keep mentioning groups --

I'm not saying individuals.

There's certainly black individuals

who didn't take coronavirus seriously,

which is one of the reasons
why they were infected.

But there are white people
who didn't take coronavirus seriously.

No one has ever proven,
actually studies have shown

that black people were more likely
to take the coronavirus seriously

than white people.

We're not talking about individuals here,

and we certainly should not
be individualizing groups.

We certainly should not be looking at
the individual behavior,

one Latinx person or one black person,

and saying they're
representatives of the groups.

That's a racist idea in and of itself.

And so I'm talking about groups,

and if you believe that groups are equals,

then the only other alternative,

the only other explanation
to persisting inequity and injustice,

is power and policy.

And to then spend your time transforming
and challenging power and policy

is to spend your time being anti-racist.

WPR: So we have some questions
that are coming in from the audience.

First one here is from a community member

that asks, "When we talk
about white privilege,

we talk also about the privilege
not to have the difficult conversations.

Do you feel that's starting to change?

IXK: I hope so,

because I think that white Americans, too,

need to simultaneously recognize

their privileges,

the privileges that they have accrued

as a result of their whiteness,

and the only way in which
they're going to be able to do that

is by initiating and having
these conversations.

But then they also should recognize

that, yes, they have more,

white Americans have more,

due to racist policy,

but the question I think
white Americans should be having,

particularly when they're having
these conversations among themselves,

is, if we had a more equitable society,

would we have more?

Because what I'm asking is that, you know,

white Americans have more
because of racism,

but there are other groups of people
in other Western democracies

who have more than white Americans,

and then you start to ask the question,

why is it that people in other countries
have free health care?

Why is it that they
have paid family leave?

Why is it that they have
a massive safety net?

Why is it that we do not?

And one of the major answers
to why we do not here have is racism.

One of the major answers as to why

Donald Trump is President
of the United States

is racism.

And so I'm not really asking
white Americans to be altruistic

in order to be anti-racist.

We're really asking people

to have intelligent self-interest.

Those four million, I should say
five million poor whites in 1860

whose poverty was the direct result
of the riches of a few thousand

white slaveholding families,

in order to challenge slavery,

we weren't saying, you know,
we need you to be altruistic.

No, we actually need you
to do what's in your self-interest.

Those tens of millions of Americans,
white Americans, who have lost their jobs

as a result of this pandemic,

we're not asking them to be altruistic.

We're asking them to realize that
if we had a different type of government

with a different set of priorities,

then they would be
much better off right now.

I'm sorry, don't get me started.

CS: No, we're grateful. Thank you.

And in line with that,

obviously these protests and this movement
have led to some progress:

the removal of Confederate monuments,

the Minneapolis City Council pledging
to dismantle the police department, etc.

But what do you view
as the greatest priority

on a policy level as this fight
for justice continues?

Are there any ways in which
we could learn from other countries?

IXK: I don't actually think necessarily

there's a singular policy priority.

I mean, if someone was
to force me to answer,

I would probably say two,

and that is,

high quality free health care for all,

and when I say high quality,

I'm not just talking about
Medicare For All,

I'm talking about a simultaneous scenario

in which in rural southwest Georgia,

where the people are predominantly black

and have some of the highest
death rates in the country,

those counties in southwest Georgia,

from COVID,

that they would have access to health care

as high quality as people do
in Atlanta and New York City,

and then, simultaneously,

that that health care would be free.

So many Americans not only of course
are dying this year of COVID

but also of heart disease and cancer,

which are the number one killers
before COVID of Americans,

and they're disproportionately black.

And so I would say that,

and then secondarily,
I would say reparations.

And many Americans claim

that they believe in racial equality,

they want to bring about racial equality.

Many Americans recognize
just how critical economic livelihood is

for every person in this country,
in this economic system.

But then many Americans reject
or are not supportive of reparations.

And so we have a situation

in which white Americans

are, last I checked,

their median wealth is 10 times
the median wealth of black Americans,

and according to a recent study,

between now and 2053,

white median wealth is projected to grow,

and this was before
this current recession,

and black median wealth

is expected to redline at zero dollars,

and that, based on this current recession,
that may be pushed up a decade.

And so we not only have
a racial wealth gap,

but we have a racial wealth gap

that's growing.

And so for those Americans who claim

they are committed to racial equality

who also recognize the importance
of economic livelihood

and who also know
that wealth is inherited,

and the majority of wealth is inherited,

and when you think of the inheritance,

you're thinking of past,

and the past policies

that many Americans consider to be racist,

whether it's slavery or even redlining,

how would we even begin to close

this growing racial wealth gap

without a massive program
like reparations?

WPR: Well, sort of connected to this idea
of thinking about wealth disparity

and wealth inequality in this country,

we have a question
from community member Dana Perls.

She asks, "How do you suggest
liberal white organizations

effectively address problems of racism
within the work environment,

particularly in environments where people
remain silent in the face of racism

or make token statements
without looking internally?

IXK: Sure.

And so I would make a few suggestions.

One, for several decades now,

every workplace has publicly pledged

a commitment to diversity.

Typically, they have diversity statements.

I would basically rip up
those diversity statements

and write a new statement,

and that's a statement
committed to anti-racism.

And in that statement you would
clearly define what a racist idea is,

what an anti-racist idea is,

what a racist policy is
and what an anti-racist policy is.

And you would state as a workplace
that you're committed

to having a culture of anti-racist ideas

and having an institution
made up of anti-racist policies.

And so then everybody
can measure everyone's ideas

and the policies of that workplace
based on that document.

And I think that that could begin
the process of transformation.

I also think it's critically important

for workplaces to not only
diversify their staff

but diversify their upper administration.

And I think that's
absolutely critical as well.

CS: We have some more questions
coming in from the audience.

We have one from Melissa Mahoney,

who is asking, "Donald Trump seems
to be making supporting Black Lives Matter

a partisan issue,

for example making fun of Mitt Romney

for participating in a peaceful protest.

How do we uncouple this
to make it nonpartisan?"

IXK: Well, I mean, I think that
to say the lives of black people

is a Democratic declaration

is simultaneously stating

that Republicans do not value black life.

If that's essentially what Donald Trump
is saying if he's stating,

that there's a problem
with marching for black lives,

then what is the solution?

The solution is not marching.
What's the other alternative?

The other alternative
is not marching for black lives.

The other alternative is not caring
when black people die of police violence

or COVID.

And so to me, the way in which
we make this a nonpartisan issue

is to strike back

or argue back in that way,

and obviously Republicans
are going to claim

they're not saying that,

but it's a very simple thing:

either you believe black lives matter

or you don't,

and if you believe black lives matter

because you believe in human rights,

then you believe in the human right
for black people and all people to live

and to not have to fear police violence

and not have to fear the state

and not have to fear
that a peaceful protest

is going to be broken up

because a politician wants
to get a campaign op,

then you're going to institute
policy that shows it.

Or, you're not.

WPR: So I want to ask a question

just about how people
can think about anti-racism

and how they can actually
bring this into their lives.

I imagine that a lot of folks,

they hear this and they're like,

oh, you know, I have to be
really thoughtful

about how my actions and my words

are perceived.

What is the perceived intention
behind what it is I'm saying,

and that that may feel exhausting,

and I think that connects
even to this idea of policy.

And so I'm curious.

There is a huge element of thoughtfulness

that comes along

with this work of being anti-racist.

And what is your reaction and response
to those who feel concerned

about the mental exhaustion
with having to constantly think

about how your actions
may hurt or harm others?

IXK: So I think part of the concern
that people have about mental exhaustion

is this idea

that they don't ever
want to make a mistake,

and I think to be anti-racist

is to make mistakes,

and is to recognize
when we make a mistake.

For us, what's critical
is to have those very clear definitions

so that we can assess our words,

we can assess our deeds,

and when we make a mistake,
we just own up to it and say,

you know, that was a racist idea?

You know what, I was supporting
a racist policy, but I'm going to change.

The other thing I think
is important for us to realize

is in many ways

we are addicted,

and when I say we, individuals
and certainly this country,

is addicted to racism,

and that's one of the reasons why

for so many people
they're just in denial.

People usually deny their addictions.

But then, once we realize
that we have this addiction,

everyone who has been addicted,

you know, you talk
to friends and family members

who are overcoming an addiction
to substance abuse,

they're not going to say

that they're just healed,

that they don't have
to think about this regularly.

Someone who is
overcoming alcoholism

is going to say, you know,
this is a day-by-day process,

and I take it day by day

and moment by moment,

and yes, it's difficult

to restrain myself

from reverting back
to what I'm addicted to,

but at the same time it's liberating,

it's freeing,

because I'm no longer
having to wallow in that addiction.

And so I think, and I'm no longer
having to hurt people

due to my addiction.

And I think that's critical.

We spend too much time
thinking about how we feel

and less time thinking about how
our actions and ideas make others feel.

And I think that's one thing
that the George Floyd video

forced Americans to do

was to really see and hear, especially,

how someone feels

as a result of their racism.

CS: We have another question
from the audience.

This one is asking about,

"Can you speak to the intersectionality

between the work of anti-racism,
feminism and gay rights?

How does the work of anti-racism
relate and affect the work

of these other human rights issues?"

IXK: Sure.

So I define a racist idea

as any idea that suggests
a racial group is superior

or inferior to another
racial group in any way.

And I use the term racial group

as opposed to race

because every race is a collection
of racialized intersectional groups,

and so you have black women and black men

and you have black heterosexuals
and black queer people,

just as you have Latinx women
and white women and Asian men,

and what's critical for us to understand

is there hasn't just been racist ideas

that have targeted,
let's say, black people.

There has been racist ideas
that have been developed

and targeted black women,

that have targeted black Lesbians,

that have targeted
black transgender women.

And oftentimes these racist ideas
targeting these intersectional groups

are intersecting with
other forms of bigotry

that is also targeting these groups.

To give an example about black women,

one of the oldest racist ideas
about black women

was this idea that they're inferior women

or that they're not even women at all,

and that they're inferior to white women,

who are the pinnacle of womenhood.

And that idea has intersected

with this sexist idea

that suggests that women are weak,

that the more weak a person is,
a woman is, the more woman she is,

and the stronger a woman is,
the more masculine she is.

These two ideas have intersected

to constantly degrade black women

as this idea of the strong,
black masculine woman

who is inferior to the weak, white woman.

And so the only way
to really understand these constructs

of a weak, super-feminine white woman

and a strong, hyper-masculine black woman

is to understand sexist ideas,

is to reject sexist ideas,

and I'll say very quickly,
the same goes for the intersection

of racism and homophobia,

in which black queer people
have been subjected to this idea

that they are more hypersexual

because there's this idea of queer people

as being more hypersexual
than heterosexuals.

And so black queer people have been tagged

as more hypersexual
than white queer people

and black heterosexuals.

And you can't really see that
and understand that and reject that

if you're not rejecting and understanding
and challenging homophobia too.

WPR: And to this point of challenging,

we have another question
from Maryam Mohit in our community,

who asks, "How do you see cancel culture
and anti-racism interacting.

For example, when someone
did something obviously racist in the past

and it comes to light?"

How do we respond to that?

IXK: Wow.

So I think it's very, very complex.

I do obviously encourage people
to transform themselves,

to change, to admit those times
in which they were being racist,

and so obviously we as a community

have to give people
that ability to do that.

We can't, when someone admits
that they were being racist,

we can't immediately
obviously cancel them.

But I also think

that there are people

who do something so egregious

and there are people who are so unwilling

to recognize how egregious
what they just did is,

so in a particular moment,

so not just the horrible, vicious act,

but then on top of that the refusal
to even admit the horrible, vicious act.

In that case, I could see how people
would literally want to cancel them,

and I think that we have to,
on the other hand,

we have to have some sort of consequence,

public consequence, cultural consequence,

for people acting in a racist manner,

especially in an extremely egregious way.

And for many people, they've decided,

you know what, I'm just
going to cancel folks.

And I'm not going
to necessarily critique them,

but I do think we should try
to figure out a way

to discern those who are refusing
to transform themselves

and those who made a mistake
and recognized it

and truly are committed
to transforming themselves.

CS: Yeah, I mean,

one of the concerns many activists
have been expressing

is that the energy behind
the Black Lives Matter movement

has to stay high

for anti-racist change
to truly take place.

I think that applies
to what you just said as well.

And I guess I'm curious
what your opinion is

on when the protests start to wane

and people's donation-matching campaigns
fade into the background,

how can we all ensure
that this conversation

about anti-racism stays central?

IXK: Sure.

So in "How To Be An Anti-Racist,"

in one of the final chapters,

is this chapter called "Failure."

I talked about what I call
feelings advocacy,

and this is people feeling bad
about what's happening,

what happened to George Floyd

or what happened to Ahmaud Arbery
or what happened to Breonna Taylor.

They just feel bad about this country
and where this country is headed.

And so the way
they go about feeling better

is by coming to a demonstration.

The way they go about feeling better

is by donating to
a particular organization.

The way they go about feeling better

is reading a book.

And so if this what
many Americans are doing,

then once they feel better,

in other words once the individual
feels better through their participation

in book clubs or demonstrations

or donation campaigns,

then nothing is going to change
except, what, their own feelings.

And so we need to move past our feelings.

And this isn't to say
that people shouldn't feel bad,

but we should use our feelings,

how horrible we feel
about what is going on,

to put into place, put into practice,

anti-racist power and policies.

In other words, our feelings
should be driving us.

They shouldn't be the end all.

This should not be about
making us feel better.

This should be about
transforming this country,

and we need to keep our eyes
on transforming this country,

because if we don't,

then once people feel better
after this is all over,

then we'll be back to the same situation
of being horrified by another video,

and then feeling bad,

and then the cycle will only continue.

WPR: You know, I think
when we think about

what sort of changes we can implement

and how we could
make the system work better,

make our governments work better,

make our police work better,

are there models in other countries

where, obviously the history
in the United States is really unique

in terms of thinking about
race and oppression.

But when you look to other nations
and other cultures,

are there other models
that you look at as examples

that we could potentially implement here?

IXK: I mean, there are so many.

There are countries in which
police officers don't wear weapons.

There are countries

who have more people
than the United States

but less prisoners.

There are countries

who try to fight violent crime

not with more police and prisons

but with more jobs and more opportunities,

because they know and see
that the communities

with the highest levels of violent crime

tend to be communities
with high levels of poverty

and long-term unemployment.

And then, obviously,

other countries provide pretty sizable
social safety nets for people

such that people are not
committing crimes out of poverty,

such that people are not
committing crimes out of despair.

And so I think that
it's critically important for us

to first and foremost

think through, OK, if there's
nothing wrong with the people,

then how can we go about
reducing police violence?

How can we go about
reducing racial health inequities?

What policies can we change?
What policies have worked?

These are the types of questions
we need to be asking,

because there's never really
been anything wrong with the people.

CS: In your "Atlantic" piece

called "Who Gets To Be
Afraid in America," you wrote,

"What I am, a black male,
should not matter.

Who I am should matter."

And I feel that's kind of
what you're saying,

that in other places
maybe that's more possible,

and I'm curious when you imagine

a country in which
who you are mattered first,

what does that look like?

IXK: Well, what it looks like
for me as a black American

is that people do not view me as dangerous
and thereby make my existence dangerous.

It allows me to walk around this country

and to not believe that people
are going to fear me

because of the color my skin.

It allows me to believe, you know what,

I didn't get that job because
I could have done better on my interview,

not because of the color of my skin.

It allows me to --

a country where there's racial equity,

a country where there's racial justice,

a country where there's
shared opportunity,

a country where African American culture
and Native American culture

and the cultures of Mexican Americans

and Korean Americans
are all valued equally,

that no one is being asked to assimilate
into white American culture.

There's no such thing
as standard professional wear.

There's no such thing as, well,
you need to learn how to speak English

in order to be an American.

And we would truly not only have
equity and justice for all

but we would somehow have found a way

to appreciate difference,

to appreciate all of the human
ethnic and cultural difference

that exists in the United States.

This is what could make
this country great,

in which we literally become a country

where you could literally
travel around this country

and learn about cultures
from all over the world

and appreciate those cultures,

and understand even your own culture

from what other people are doing.

There's so much beauty here
amid all this pain

and I just want to peel away

and remove away

all of those scabs of racist policies

so that people can heal

and so that we can see true beauty.

WPR: And Ibram, when you think
about this moment,

where do you see them on [?]
of progress towards reaching

that true beauty?

IXK: Well, I think, for me,

I always see progress
and resistance in demonstrations

and know just because people
are calling from town squares

and from city halls

for progressive, systemic change
that that change is here,

but people are calling

and people are calling
in small towns, in big cities,

and people are calling
from places we've heard of

and places we need to have heard of.

People are calling for change,
and people are fed up.

I mean, we're living in a time

in which we're facing a viral pandemic,

a racial pandemic
within that viral pandemic

of people of color disproportionately
being infected and dying,

even an economic pandemic

with over 40 million Americans
having lost their jobs,

and certainly this pandemic
of police violence,

and then people demonstrating
against police violence

only to suffer police violence
at demonstrations.

I mean, people see
there's a fundamental problem here,

and there's a problem that can be solved.

There's an America that can be created,

and people are calling for this,

and that is always the beginning.

The beginning is what
we're experiencing now.

CS: I think that
this next audience question

follows well from that, which is,

"What gives you hope right now?"

IXK: So certainly resistance to racism
has always given me hope,

and so even if, let's say,

six months ago we were not in a time
in which almost every night

all over this country people
were demonstrating against racism,

but I could just look to history

when people were resisting.

And so resistance always brings me hope,

because it is always resistance,

and of course it's stormy,

but the rainbow is typically
on the other side.

But I also receive hope philosophically,

because I know that in order
to bring about change,

we have to believe in change.

There's just no way
a change maker can be cynical.

It's impossible.

So I know I have to believe in change

in order to bring it about.

WPR: And we have another question here

which addresses some of the things
you talked about before

in terms of the structural change
that we need to bring about.

From Maryam Mohit: "In terms of putting
into practice the transformative policies,

is then the most important thing
to loudly vote the right people

into office at every level who can make
those structural changes happen?"

IXK: So I think that that is part of it.

I certainly think we should
vote into office

people who, from school boards
to the President of the United States,

people who are committed

to instituting anti-racist policies

that lead to equity and justice,

and I think that
that's critically important,

but I don't think

that we should think that that's
the only that we should focused on

or the only thing that we should be doing.

And there are institutions,

there are neighborhoods,

that need to be transformed,

that are to a certain extent

outside of the purview of a policymaker

who is an elected official.

There are administrators
and CEOs and presidents

who have the power to transform policies

within their spheres,
within their institutions,

and so we should be focused there.

The last thing I'll say about voting is,

I wrote a series of pieces
for "The Atlantic" early this year

that sought to get Americans
thinking about who I call

"the other swing voter,"

and not the traditional swing voter
who swings from Republican to Democrat

who are primarily older and white.

I'm talking about the people
who swing from voting Democrat

to not voting at all.

And these people are typically younger

and they're typically people of color,

but they're especially
young people of color,

especially young black
and Latinx Americans.

And so we should view these people,

these young, black and Latino voters

who are trying to decide
whether to vote as swing voters

in the way we view these people

who are trying to decide between
whether to vote for, let's say,

Trump or Biden in the general election.

In other words, to view
them both as swing voters

is to view them both in a way that,
OK, we need to persuade these people.

They're not political cattle.

We're not just going to turn them out.

We need to encourage and persuade them,

and then we also
for these other swing voters

need to make it easier for them to vote,

and typically these young people of color,
it's the hardest for them to vote

because of voter suppression policies.