Kendi declines debate with Walsh over slavery after viral exchange
“Anti-racist” Activist Ibram X. Kendi Declines Debate Offer from Matt Walsh on World Slavery
Last week, a heated exchange between Ibram X. Kendi, an “anti-racist” activist, and Daily Wire host Matt Walsh went viral. Kendi accused Walsh of perpetuating “White savior” rhetoric when Walsh stated that white people were not the inventors of slavery but were the first to abolish it. In response, Walsh challenged Kendi to a live debate on the topic, but Kendi declined, citing the support of ”many historians” who supposedly debunked Walsh’s claims.
Kendi declines my invitation to debate the history of slavery because, he says, ”many historians” have already said that he’s right. https://t.co/AutVKNw8O9
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) February 12, 2024
The exchange began when Walsh responded to Kendi’s post claiming that “Slavery is white history. How we survived it is black history.” Walsh countered, stating that slavery is a part of world history and that white people were not solely responsible for its existence. He pointed out that Africa was the last place to legally abolish slavery, not doing so until 1981.
Slavery is world history. White people did not invent it, and were not the first to practice it, but were the first to abolish it. The last place in the world to still have legal slavery was Africa. It wasn’t fully legally abolished on the continent until 1981. https://t.co/ZfTvdLXydt
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) February 6, 2024
Kendi took offense to Walsh’s response, calling it the “ultimate White savior statement.” In an attempt to address their differences, Walsh proposed a live debate, inviting Kendi to explain why he believed Walsh’s statements about slavery were incorrect.
Why don’t we have a conversation live on camera about this issue? You can explain to me in person why my statements about slavery are wrong. What do you say @ibramxk?
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) February 8, 2024
However, Kendi declined the offer, dismissing it as a “huge waste of my time.” He accused Walsh of producing propaganda that glorified white people and disregarded factual accuracy. Kendi argued that historians had already explained why Walsh’s statements were incorrect and criticized Walsh for emphasizing the supposed greatness of white people in abolishing slavery.
Many historians have already explained why your statements about slavery are wrong. It would be a huge waste of my time repeating what has already been shared with you. What is factually right and factually wrong doesn’t seem to matter to you. You seem intent on producing…
— Ibram X. Kendi (@ibramxk) February 9, 2024
Kendi, known for promoting Critical Race Theory, gained prominence after the death of George Floyd in 2020. He has authored books and given speeches on the subject, often charging high fees for his engagements. In 2021, he received a $625,000 grant for research from the MacArthur Foundation. However, his Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University faced controversy, resulting in staff terminations and an inquiry into its culture.
Since the publication of his book “How to Be an Antiracist,” Kendi has faced criticism for his belief that all racial disparities are due to racism. His children’s book, “Antiracist Baby,” has also been met with backlash.
By declining the debate offer, is Ibram X. Kendi unintentionally reinforcing the idea that his arguments are unassailable and beyond scrutiny
Ebruary 8, 2024
However, Kendi declined the offer, dismissing Walsh’s invitation by claiming that “many historians” had already proven him wrong. This raises an important question about the role of debate in the pursuit of truth and understanding. Should Kendi, as a prominent “anti-racist” activist, engage in a debate to clarify his position and address potential inaccuracies in his claims? Or does his reliance on the support of historians signify a lack of confidence in his arguments?
The issue at hand is the historical context of slavery. Walsh’s argument is based on the fact that slavery is not exclusive to white history, but rather a part of world history. He highlights the fact that while white people were not the inventors of slavery, they were the first to abolish it. Africa, on the other hand, only fully abolished legal slavery in 1981, making it the last place in the world to do so. This information challenges the notion that white people are solely responsible for the existence and perpetuation of slavery.
By declining Walsh’s invitation to a debate, Kendi misses an opportunity to engage in a productive discussion that could lead to a better understanding of the complexity of history. Debating allows for the exchange of ideas, the challenge of assumptions, and the exploration of different perspectives. It is through this process of intellectual discourse that we can arrive at a more nuanced understanding of historical events. Simply dismissing opposing views and relying on the support of historians may not provide a comprehensive picture.
Additionally, Kendi’s dependence on the authority of historians raises questions about the biases and interpretations that may be present in their work. Historians, like any other scholars, can have their own biases and agendas that may shape their interpretations of historical events. It is therefore important to critically evaluate their claims and consider alternative perspectives that challenge the established narratives.
Engaging in a debate would allow Kendi to not only defend his perspective but also address potential inaccuracies or misconceptions in his arguments. It would provide an opportunity for him to present a more comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the history of slavery. By declining the debate, Kendi may be unintentionally reinforcing the idea that his arguments are unassailable and beyond scrutiny.
Furthermore, declining the debate may also perpetuate the “echo chamber” effect, wherein individuals only engage with ideas and opinions that align with their own. It is important to step outside of our comfort zones and engage with opposing views in order to foster intellectual growth and challenge our own beliefs. By avoiding a debate, Kendi may inadvertently be limiting his own intellectual development and hindering the potential for progress in the understanding of historical events.
In conclusion, the decision of “anti-racist” activist Ibram X. Kendi to decline the debate offer from Matt Walsh on the topic of slavery raises important questions about the pursuit of truth and understanding. Engaging in a debate allows for the exploration of different perspectives and the challenge of assumptions. By declining the debate and relying solely on the support of historians, Kendi may miss an opportunity to present a more comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the complex history of slavery. It is through the exchange of ideas and the engagement with opposing views that we can arrive at a more nuanced understanding of historical events.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
