It is by now old news that Scott Adams has been “cancelled” for a “racist rant”. Why did Adams say what he said, and will he succeed in his purpose? Some relevant posts are here, here, and here.
I’m going to focus on the charge of racism. The word has come to stand for something other than its traditional meaning, which is this:
There is a superior race (usually that of the believer in such a thing), and other races are inferior to it (or another, particular, race is inferior to it). Persons of inferior races are to be detested, feared, subjugated, or eliminated. They are not to be associated with unless they are in a subservient position.
The sense of superiority needs no justification. It just exists. A racist is usually a person who has learned to detest persons of a different race simply because they are of a different race. Along with that learning comes pre-packaged rationalizations for detesting persons of a different race.
I grew up — in the North — among white racists. They weren’t the kind who would lynch a black person or organize a mob to terrorize blacks. But they didn’t want to associate with blacks, and they demeaned them in many ways (though usually not to their faces). They would remark on their language (non-standard English), intelligence (without actual evidence of it), “loud” attire, supposed moral laxity, supposed dependence on welfare, “rhythm”, race-based superiority in certain athletic endeavors (e.g., jumping and sprinting), and so on.
Some of those distinguishing characteristics were (and are) true, in general (e.g., average intelligence of blacks vs. whites and East Asians), though untrue in vast numbers of particular cases. But facts and individual differences weren’t what mattered. Most whites were simply prejudiced against blacks, period. And there were certainly many blacks then (as now) who reciprocated the feeling. (Then, as now, white “elites” would eschew overt expressions of racism but evince it through condescension toward blacks and low expectations for them.)
A lot has happened during the intervening years; for example:
desegregation of the armed forces
desegregation of public schools based on race (but no longer — in most places — geographically)
desegregation of colleges and universities
desegregation of “public accommodations” (hotels, bars, restaurants, etc.)
easier access of “minorities” to credit for buying homes and cars and starting or expanding businesses (usually by lowering credit standards directly or setting up special funding carve-outs)
“affirmative action”, that is, favoritism toward blacks in hiring and promotion)
the rise of “diversity” and then “diversity, equity, and inclusion”, meaning that blacks deserve certain privileges because of the color of their skin because some blacks decades and centuries ago were
a long-term shift in the treatment by law-enforcement of blacks — from beatings and violent suppression to standing back from black criminality — with the notable and exploited exception of cases of malfeasance against individual blacks
a long-term shift in the governance of many major cities from mostly white to mostly black, and the concomitant degradation of public services and “law and order” in those cities (or so it seems to the casual observer).
To many whites, even those who have been disposed to helping blacks advance (or, at least, have not hindered or resented their advancement), the story arc looks like this:
1. systematic and undeserved mistreatment of blacks as a group
2. good-faith efforts to end mistreatment, treat blacks fairly, and give them more opportunities to advance socially and economically
3. bad-faith efforts to bestow unearned power and privileges on blacks
4. blaming white racism for isolated (but highly publicized) instances of police brutality and for the persistent social and financial problems of blacks.
I believe that Scott Adams is one of the whites — an anti-racist, supportive one — who has deciphered the story and given up. Like many whites, he has given up because he knows what’s next:
5. growing resentment of blacks by non-”elite” whites, commingled with resentment of and scorn for “elite” whites who are stuck in stage 1 of the story arc and/or seek to signal their superiority to racist whites (whose numbers they vastly exaggerate)
6. continued failure of blacks, in general, to close the income and wealth gaps between whites and blacks
7. more interracial tension and violence, especially black-on-white violence (largely ignored by the media)
8. more efforts by governments and private institutions to mollify and condescend to blacks (e.g., the irritating and glaring over-representation of blacks in commercials, movies, and TV shows)
9. accordingly, more favoritism toward blacks leading to more financial and social burdens on whites (aside from immunized “elites”), including but far from limited to the cost of reparations and the institutionalization of “social credit”
If that is what lies ahead, then it behooves most whites not only to give up on racial “equity” (whatever that is) but to resist efforts to attain it.
None of what I have said in this post is racist or should be considered racist. Unless, of course, you are using a definition of racism which condemns any account of black-white differences as racist if it doesn’t attribute those differences to (white) “racism”.
If Scott Adams would agree with what I have said, he is not a racist. Most likely, he is — like me — a realist. But under the new dispensation, that makes us racists.
You didn't mention reparations. That is: what's owed by those who did no harm to those who suffered no harm. The tally increases year-by-year, and will never--no, CAN never--be finalized. It's a demand that can never be satisfied by any means. So long as there are Coates and Kendis, DiAngelos, and Sharptons to prevent the healing, there will only be continual scab-picking.