Hi LT,

Thank you for engaging with me on this topic. Your comments focus on the premise of my essay—that many people are tired of the conversation. I often find myself responding to the premise of other people's writing—and I'll respond to your thoughts in a moment—yet I cannot tell a couple of things from what you've written.

First, did you read the full essay? Second, what do you think of additional perspectives I offer? Given the thoughtful way you responded to the premise, I would be interested in your observations about deracialization (which neither Kendi nor DiAngelo advocate for even though they name the falsehood of biological race—I've read Kendi closely and have written elsewhere of why I think he misses an opportunity to be even more antiracist by his definition), the Omni-American vision, and developmental politics.

Now, let me respond to your comments about people's exhaustion. I wasn't very clear about exactly who is tired of the conversation and said nothing about why. Different people are tired for different reasons. Let's start with black-identified Americans, of course an amazingly diverse group.

Core to the antiracist thinking is that many black-identified Americans who are actively combating racism or simply trying to live their lives without the constant stresses of micro-aggressions and such are tired of having to explain basic things over and over again—hence the advice to white-identified folks to "do your own work first." A subset of black-identified Americans don't think that Kendi represents their ideas well; they are tired of having to continuously say "We are more than victims" and "Look at the enormous accomplishments and progress." So that's another source of fatigue. In neither of these cases are people necessarily exiting the conversation. They're just tired of it.

Then there is a big group of Americans, largely white-identified though also with other cultural backgrounds, who fit the description you give. They've never spent a lot of time thinking deeply or talking about racism and "race" and either weren't sparked by George Floyd's murder to get involved or got highly engaged for a while and then burned out. Here I would say that folks are tired and exiting the conversation, if they ever entered it to begin with.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're mostly addressing this latter group, right? A lot of what you write about the importance of staying in the conversation resonates with me. In fact, that's precisely why I wrote this piece to begin with!

Where we may differ—and I'll only learn this once you address the core of the essay—is in how we answer these questions: when lots of people are getting tired of a conversation, might people leading the conversation consider reframing how they approach it? Might they introduce new angles and perspectives and even shift their tone such that more people get and stay engaged?

My answer is: absolutely so. That's why I have written about deracialization, the Omni-American vision and developmental politics. If we introduced these into the conversation, might we not get and keep more people engaged—and therefore further the evolutionary process you so elegantly name?

It sounds like the language introduced by Kendi, DiAngelo et al have been valuable to you, as it has to many others. But there is a huge swatch of well-meaning people who have been turned off by their ideas yet long to contribute to combating racism and creating a better world. Do we write these people off? Do we tell them they need to "get it?" Or do we offer them alternative language that works for them and also further the evolutionary journey?

That's what this essay is about. I'd love to hear your thoughts about it.