I made the mistake of subjecting myself to the viral video starring Tamika Mallory of formerly of Women’s March fame.  She gave an extended diatribe about the protests (and riots and looting) that happened in response to the death of George Floyd.  She claimed that America looted its wealth from black people and Native Americans.  She claimed that “mental illness” had been inflicted on black people by the system.  She claimed that the state preferred to “preserve a white nationalist and white supremacist mindset.”  And she claimed that it’s OK to burn down Target, because Target should be on the streets with her.  Amongst other things.

There’s a lot to unpack there.  For starters, the primary thing worth noting is that the speech (as is typical of social justice activists) makes dozens of accusations without offering real proof.  For example, I’ve noted before that the “America was stolen” narrative is a reductive and lazy view of American history.  Reality is far more complicated than the simple story social justice activists tell themselves.  But this is frequently asserted as irrefutable fact by the more radical members of the left.

As for some of the other inanities she pushed, let’s start with this idea that America has inflicted mental illness on black people.  This is a common talking point intended to explain away things like higher crime rates or rates of single motherhood (a factor that has been shown to lead to higher crime rates) that a normal person would imagine is a failure of personal responsibility.  The idea is that because the system is the way it is, these behaviors have actually been inflicted on black people.  It’s a fairly transparent way to deflect blame and responsibility.

This is obviously ridiculous, since studies show that about 15% of the black male population (the numbers are obviously smaller for women) have spent time in prison.  So it sure looks like the overwhelming majority of black people are quite capable of avoiding criminal behavior.  It’s kind of hard to argue that a behavior is inflicted on a community when so many appear immune to it.

But there actually is one form of mental illness that is being inflicted on the black community.  It happens every time she and people like her insist that America is white supremacist and systemically racist.  If you say this often enough, even when all of the empirical evidence seems to indicate the literal opposite, people will start to believe it. This is a great way to increase anxiety amongst black people.

I remember something the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt once said. He noted that “trigger warnings” actually increase anxiety.  One example he provided was that when test subjects were warned that they were entering a dangerous neighborhood, their anxiety increased.  Trigger warnings don’t set people at ease.  They make things worse.

So what do we suppose happens to black people when we tell them their nation is racist?  Serious anxiety, that’s what.  Such claims just encourage black people to assume the system is rigged, and thus not put forward the effort necessary to achieve something.  This is called a self-fulfilling prophecy.  This is the mental illness that is being inflicted on black people.  Although, clearly not all of them.

And the idea that America is white supremacist and white nationalist is patently absurd.  We’ve worked harder than most countries to reduce racism.  And I find it ironic that Tamika Mallory, who accuses all of America of being white supremacist, has actual ties to a hate group.  Specifically, the Nation of Islam, one of the few black supremacist groups recognized by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  This is one of the reasons she was forced out of the Women’s March.

Oftentimes when activists throw around nebulous terms such as “White Supremacy”, and “Systemic Racism” are just code for economic inequalities between races.  The mistake made by people who utter these pat phrases is that they presume that inequality must be the result of injustice.  This is so intellectually lazy that it’s painful.  More serious critical thinkers will acknowledge that systemic issues can contribute to inequality.  But they would also have to acknowledge that personal choices also contribute.  Like, say, having kids out of wedlock.

And lastly, the idea that Target should be in the streets with the activists is the most entitled thing I’ve ever heard.  Particularly because the reason they aren’t getting support from many of us is their own fault.  They took an incident on which there was near 100% agreement on, and started pushing absurd, loony, radical politics into it which immediately drove away anyone with an ounce of sense.  And even more of us were repelled when the fires broke out.

But I think this is actually all of secondary importance.  The most important takeaway from the lengthy harangue is that very few real solutions were offered.  Apart from “arrest the cops”, by which she means arrest cops all over the country who unjustly kill a black person.  Of course, since 235 black people were killed by cops last year (the overwhelming majority of which were justified) that wouldn’t result in many arrests.  Apart from that one little tidbit, there’s no explanation from her of how to solve “white supremacy” and so forth.

Listening to the protestors isn’t much more helpful.  Apart from the typical “Dismantle the Patriarchy” and “Dismantle White Supremacy” stuff, the only specific policy request I saw was
“Defund the Police.”.  Which is a clear demonstration of the protester’s limited grasp on reality.  Defunding the police would cause a surge in crime, most of which would be concentrated in minority communities.  This isn’t something you do if you think Black Lives Matter™.  Police reform would require an investment in better recruitment and training and certain equipment (body cams, etc.) which would cost money.  So reform probably requires more money, not less.

Apart from these minor demands, I see very little in the way of specific policy goals.  This reminds me of the Occupy movement, although that was a bit different since that movement seemed to have millions of various tiny demands from the assorted splinter factions that showed up to its rallies.  This movement doesn’t appear to have any significant, tangible demands at all.  But the thing they do have in common with Occupy is that there is no cohesive message.

This ambiguity manifested in the somewhat ill-fated discussion on The Breakfast Club between Charlamagne Tha God and Rush Limbaugh.  I was pleased that it wasn’t a complete $#!+show.  But poor old Charlamagne did a great job of showing everything that’s wrong with the rhetoric of the activists currently in the street.

He made the mistake of claiming that because of white privilege, what happened to George Floyd would not happen to a white man.  Except, that it did happen.  To Tony Timpa in Dallas.  Who was also cuffed and pinned to the ground, and eventually died.  This didn’t make national news, and the cops involved were convicted of nothing.  So the idea that white people would have privilege in a case like this is sort of unproven.  If anything, the reality is quite the opposite.

Having said that, it does leave the door wide open for certain police reforms.  Because it’s not just a black/white issue.  Literally anyone can be the victim of a brutal cop.  And finding ways to prevent brutality would therefore benefit everyone.  But the idea that lethal use of force happens disproportionately to blacks is false.  Approximately 25% of crime is committed by blacks, and approximately 25% of people killed by cops are black.  So the higher rate of deaths caused by police in the black community is really just a symptom of crime rates.  The real solution to that would be reducing criminality.  But activists appear to be more interested in reducing the number of police, which would probably just make things worse.

Charlamagne went on to claim white supremacy was done by design and the whole purpose was to marginalize black people.  This is a true statement in Mississippi.  Fifty years ago.  It’s not so true today.  White supremacist nations don’t have Affirmative Action programs and various public assistance programs for minorities.  And they sure as hell don’t elect black presidents.

He also said we must “Dismantle the mechanism of white supremacy.”  Whatever that means.  It’s certainly not the David Duke/Richard Spencer definition of white supremacy.  That type of white supremacy, which assumes white people are genetically superior, has been relegated to the fringes of society.  It’s followers are treated with scorn and derision by virtually everyone.  That type of white supremacy has effectively already been dismantled.  So clearly he must be talking about something else.  But he never got around to defining it.

If we can’t specifically identify which parts of the system are white supremacist, how can we know what to dismantle?  Unless, he thinks the entire system is white supremacist.  He wouldn’t be the only one.  Bernie Sanders rather strangely claimed that our system is “top to bottom racist”.  Yet another assertion that went unexplained, by the way.  And the sheer volume of “revolutionary fist” avatars I see on Twitter posting in such ridiculous hashtags as “#boycottAmerikkka” suggests that there are many involved in this discussion who want to dismantle the entire thing.  

But no one says what they’d replace it with.  Although the “quiet part” with the fist activists is that they want to replace everything with socialism or communism.  Tamika Mallory hinted at this as well in an interview on Democracy Now, when she vaguely placed blame on “capitalism”.  And numerous activists have openly stated on Twitter and other places that their true goal is replacing capitalism.  Apparently, George Floyd just provided them with a convenient excuse.

The problem with this is that, historically, systems like that have produced greater injustice than others.  These systems typically result in starvation, poverty, and oppression (See: Gulag Archipelago.  See Also: Xinjiang Re-education Camps)  And they really aren’t good for minority populations.  Just ask the Tatars or the Uyghurs.  So if you think Black Lives Matter ™, this isn’t a good idea at all.

So that’s a non-starter.  And if that isn’t the solution, then the only plausible approach is the gradual reforms we’ve achieved over the years using the powers and rights built into our constitution.  But we can’t do that if no one will bother to tell us what the problem is.  This is why Occupy fizzled, and it’s why this movement will fail too.  

They need to come up with specifics.  Right now, all we’ve got are spurious claims of widespread racism, which are inconsistent with known, empirical data.  And all of this spurred on by a murder which we haven’t even proven was racially motivated yet.  Derek Chauvin could have just been a bad cop.  There were many complaints against him, including some from white people.  It is plausible he was just a brute, and not necessarily racist.

So if the current movement doesn’t want to fizzle out like Occupy, the first objective is to unload the most radical views.  We’re not replacing our system with a brutal, repressive ideology that was rendered obsolete in the early nineties.  We’re not going to have massive reparations or wealth redistribution.  Similar attempts made in other countries have historically ended in disaster.  Police and other reforms are possible.  But we need to know what specific reforms the protesters want, or there’s no conversation.

One of the oft-repeated themes from black writers is that black people understand white America better than white America understands them.  Another is that white people can’t see the privilege and systemic oppression.  I don’t know if that’s true.  It does seem to vastly underestimate the ability of white people to have empathy or be able to understand a new concept, which I find a little offensive.  But let’s assume that these things are true.  That would mean that white people cannot fix the problem without someone explaining it.

But the activists in the street appear either unwilling or unable to explain it.  Infuriatingly, asking for an explanation or evidence tends to result in accusations of white privilege or racism.  So this leaves us at an impasse.  Because we are also often told that white people are responsible for fixing these problems.  But if we accept the assumption that white people can’t see it, we can’t fix anything if no one takes the time to explain where the racism is.

We know that simple disparate impact or inequality is not in and of itself evidence of racism.  We know that completely dismantling the system and replacing it with something radically different is off the table.  The only option is for the dissidents clamoring for justice to get specific.  Tell us what you’d do to fix the system.  Get past repeating these vagaries such as “Dismantle White Supremacy” or “Dismantle The Patriarchy”.  Tell us what you think is wrong with the system and how you’d fix it.  Then the rest of us will push back against anything you say that seems incorrect or unworkable.  And it’s time to start accepting that challenging these ideas are not evidence of racism and are not evidence of “White Fragility”™.  This is how real progress is made.  Through dialogue.  Not by dubious accusations and vituperative rhetoric.  And certainly not by setting cities on fire.