Thanks for clarifying your objection. I think you and I share a commitment to combating racism and increasing justice and just have somewhat different perspectives of how to bring those outcomes about. You make a great point about being clear which particular anti-racist thinkers I’m critiquing and which ones I’m drawing on. These references are in the ebook. (The advocates for deracialization are Carlos Hoyt, Jr, Sheena Mason, and Greg Thomas). Without realizing it, I left them out when condensing that ebook into this short article. So, to be clear, I'm referring in this article specifically to Kendi and DiAngelo. Having said that, nearly every prominent antiracist thinker uses the words "white," "black," and "race" as they do—in a way that IMHO reinforces racial essentialism. To repeat what I have written elsewhere, these two thinkers know that biological race is a falsehood but they write as though it were real and justify this move in their books in a way I find unconvincing. Kendi either hasn't considered using or refuses to use language that more accurately reflects the falsehood of biological race, language like "racialized as white" or "black-identified." So I'm challenging him here to have his words reflect his commitments.

Now, on to where I think we see things most differently. You write that "It's not our place to publicly call out Black anti-racist activists whose views on racism we are less partial to." There are millions of other Americans who share this view with you. It contains a moral logic I agree with. When a group has been silenced for so long, it's important to give them space to speak, honor their voices, and not interrupt them. I'm with you on this. However, what you've written goes beyond this into what we might call "coerced deference." You're asking me to not only respect Kendi's voice but to keep my perspective to myself. In essence: if I see things differently from him, to shut up.

I understand your noble intentions (again, I identify with part of the moral logic here), but there is a difference between intentions and impact. Have you considered the impact of this suggestion? Right now in the U.S., there are millions of Americans who are committed to combating racism yet not taking action. One main reason: they don't feel free to speak their voices. They feel silence, shut out. Why? Because they've been coerced to defer to Kendi and other black-identified antiracist thinkers using moral logic like what you've written here coupled with Kendo's straightjacket maxim that any idea/person that isn't antiracist (by his definition) is racist. (Kendi redefines the word "racist" from a moral term to a description of impact, but most people still hear it as a moral condemnation, the worst thing you could be called). Going along with your suggestion would be a denial of their own voices and at some point becomes masochistic.

In short, the noble intention to provide more space for important voices, when twisted into an act of silencing, has the unintended consequences of turning potential allies into opponents, skeptics, or people simply resigned that nothing new is possible in this climate. You don't really want this, do you?

Finally, when it comes to Kendi himself, he has a hundred times more institutional and reputational power than me. My critique has less impact on him that a flea on the sole of his shoe.