Akala seems to think that people who oppose his views either deny racism exists or that they don’t care about minorities (I’m ethnically Indian myself). This couldn’t be further from the truth. Of course racism still and, to a certain degree, will always exist. Black communities in the West do indeed have problems that need to be addressed but there is no evidence to suggest that in the 21st century these problems are due to rampant racism. In fact the Left’s solution of tearing down Western culture and enacting socialist policies does more harm than good.
Black American conservatives such as Larry Elder and Candace Owens have extensively covered how, in the West, the dependency on welfare combined with the role of feminism in glorifying single motherhood has created a condition where the majority of black children grow up without any disciplinary father figure making them statistically more likely to commit crime, drop out of school, and have unprotected sex - which starts the cycle all over. Add in the psychological hurdle created from constantly being told that ‘no matter what you do a white man will always hold you back’, it paints a much more realistic picture of the problems that need to be addressed.
I’ll give a hats off to Akala for his financial success. One of the defining features of capitalism, the system that facilitated his wealth yet he ironically rallies against in his praise of communist China, is that with a stellar work ethic and a market to sell to, anybody can rise from poverty to make something of themselves… even if what you’re selling is subjectively awful music or objectively weak arguments. Yes, of course, capitalism is not totally fair in that some may have to work harder than others but no other system provides equality of opportunity quite like capitalism - especially not socialism as proven by every example of it in action (Nordic countries are NOT socialist).
It’s impossible for me to cover every criticism of this book so here are my main points.
Akala Frequently Uses Political Terms He Does Not Understand
Example: Political Correctness
He claims that when a nurse said she’d give his mother ‘n***** blood’ that was an instance of being ‘politically incorrect’, implying that to be ‘politically correct’ is synonymous with being ‘not racist’ - in a way he views being ‘politically correct’ as simply having good manners. What the nurse said was indeed racist, but ‘political correctness’ is a sugar coated term to describe a narcissistic intolerance of opinions considered to be ‘incorrect’.
The concept of ‘political correctness’ is a defining feature of every oppressive regime that has ever existed. Stalin and Mao would often send people who they deemed to be counter-revolutionary thinkers to camps in order to ‘correct’ their thinking.
In free societies we may not agree with certain ideas but we show tolerance to even the most disgusting ones because it is better to defeat them with words than through bloodshed. It’s ironic then that Akala, who claims to be writing a book to highlight oppression in the West, displays an appetite for it himself when he later applauds the fact that ‘’political correctness’ has made it far more difficult for bigots to just say as they please without consequence.’
Example: Multiculturalism
Akala implies at several points that multiculturalism simply means different races living in close proximity together. This is not what ‘multiculturalism’ is because it conflates the concept of ‘culture’ with ‘race’ - which are two very different things. One is to do with biology and the other with ideas. You can’t be white unless you’re white, but you can adhere to British values without being white.
‘Multiculturalism’ is the idea that immigrants should not be expected to assimilate to British cultural standards and values but instead retain their own value systems. The reason why most Brexiteers are opposed to this is because although ‘people’ can co-exist - certain values cannot as they contradict each other and can lead to conflict.
For example, Western culture values ‘freedom of speech’, the right to speak your mind regardless of how deplorable your opinion may be considered to others, however, traditional Islamic cultures do not. Muhammad is regarded as most sacred in these cultures therefore criticism is not tolerated and violence is supposedly justified (of course, not all Muslims think like this!). When these two values collide, however, there is undoubtedly conflict as both sets of people seek to defend their values.
To be against multiculturalism is to be in favour of having every individual on the same page on the most fundamental values of society, rather than having a society whereby different groups are entitled to different rights and held to different standards of morality. Where was this nuanced discussion from Akala?
Akala NEVER Provides a Balanced Argument
In the ‘Interlude’ section Akala tries to provide witty counter arguments to supposed criticisms from people who oppose his views, however he reduces all their arguments into one liners while countering with lengthy responses. Strangely he, himself, even mocks this approach in one of his points?
“I can think of no better testament to the difficulties people have discussing race than this silly but often quoted one-liner.”
I had to wonder if he is deliberately taking advantage of the fact that this book is aimed at people who already support his views and are therefore more likely to fall susceptible to confirmation bias and not notice the act of deception. In the interest of giving him the benefit of the doubt, I’ll assume it’s more to do with the fact that his understanding of opposing viewpoints fail to go much further than clickbait headlines written by left-wing journalists.
This is clear from all of the rhetorical questions scattered through the book that supposedly serve as a literary ‘mic drop’. In a balanced argument you would actually address these questions, first of all just out of curiosity for truth, but also that if you want to persuade others to change their opinion it’s generally a sign of respect to indicate you understand their point of view. To me it seems that Akala has written this book for people who already share his opinion in an attempt to stroke his own ego.
Akala mocks: ‘You should be grateful that you have free speech’
Akala claims that being ‘grateful that your government does not kill, torture or imprison you for your criticisms is an extremely low bar for expectation.’ The fact that he thinks free speech is a ‘low bar’ is the clearest indicator that Akala has little understanding of history outside of the few convenient bits he’s pulled together for this book.
For most of history, and even today, free speech serves as the exception not the norm because the ‘pen’ is, correctly, ‘mightier than the sword’. The reason why the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, the Kim Dynasty, Mao and today’s China under Jinping have not tolerated free speech is because every ruler, since the invention of language itself, has known that ‘ideas’ can recruit more members than any army, and therefore serve as the most dangerous threat to their power. Those in favour of censorship do so because they know that the truth will always trump the lie.
The fact that Western societies, more or less (although increasingly less due to political correctness), are societies that value free speech is something that we indeed SHOULD be extremely grateful for as it is the product of centuries of sacrifice, and we should show gratitude for those sacrifices by fiercely protecting this fundamental principle of equality.
An additional point on this is that Akala correctly points out that there are certain limitations to free speech such as copyright laws and incitement to violence. This is not a form of hypocrisy, as he suggests, but more that freedom of speech must still submit to the golden rule of Classical Liberalism which is that every individual is free to commit any action so long as it does not impede the freedom of another individual. Limiting free speech, therefore, is only justified in this context and this is why peaceful protests are lawful while rioting is not.
Akala mocks: ‘You’re obsessed with identity politics’ and ‘You are trying to blame me for what my ancestors did.’
Again, Akala’s lack knowledge of political theory because he does not know what ‘identity politics’ is. He includes questions in the book like, ‘please explain to me how all politics is not in part ‘identity’ politics. Are ‘working class’ ‘Irish’, ‘Christian’, ‘Jewish’ and ‘Japanese’ not all identities?’ Leaving this as an open ended question implies that he has never heard nor bothered to research the answer to this question - because there is one.
Identity politics is a term used to describe the notion that people should be treated differently based on the identity of the group they belong to rather than their character as an individual. It is essentially THE definition of racism and it is precisely what Martin Luther King Jr was campaigning against when he dreamt that his children, ‘will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.’ People who are opposed to identity politics are the people who care about individual liberty and equal rights to all citizens regardless of their group identity.
Having pride in past national events (his example include the World Cup and the World Wars) do not restrict somebody else’s freedom. The golden rule of Western society is that you are free to do more or less whatever you please as long as it does not restrict the freedom of another. Akala doesn’t understand that it is within his right to have a negative opinion about the descendants of slave owners, but the line gets drawn when you want policies that affect them because of this past. The best example of this would be the call for reparations to the black community in the US. This would be deeply immoral because the descendants of slave owners have never owned slaves therefore would have never committed the crime they would be required to pay for.
Akala mocks: ‘You just hate Britain, you are anti-British’
Akala once again dumb’s down a very complex argument. The complex criticism is three-fold.
First, it relates to the concept of ‘moral relativism’, that supposedly all cultures are equal in their worth to civilisation.
It is an objective truth that in a list of merits and failures of every culture known to man there is no culture that comes close to the advancement and flourishing of civilisation than Western culture. Other cultures indeed have contributed, notably Chinese, Japanese and the brief golden age of Islam, but Western culture overwhelmingly runs away with the list of accomplishments.
Of course, the West has been accused of many horrendous crimes that Akala has compiled throughout the book, but these are not inherent features of Western culture and is more a reflection of what occurs when we deviate from the things that define our culture such as Greek philosophy, Roman rule of law, Enlightenment values such as freedom of speech, and when we move towards the traditions of other cultures.
Overall the West has been a net-positive for mankind, more than any other culture. This doesn’t mean Western people should consider themselves superior to other people, but it does mean that its moral and legal framework is. There is reason why only countries with Western traditions have serious demands for immigration while countries that follow other traditions do not. The people in these other cultures dream of, and work their whole lives towards, moving to a culture that provides the level of freedom and prosperity available in the West.
The idea of moral relativism is merely a silly, though brilliant, tool used by Marxists to divert people away from objective reality by claiming that the value of a culture is merely subjective. They make it so that culture is valued like art or music, rather than its utility for human flourishing. It takes a serious level of self-persuasion and disregard of reality to claim that Western culture is no better than a culture that practices the stoning of rape victims or the punishing of homosexuals by throwing them off rooftops.
Third, the issue related to nationalism, which again, Akala proves to have no awareness of and does his best to turn the nationalist argument into a straw man. This is clear when he assumes that to be a nationalist you must the echo ‘the ‘‘blood and soil’ logic of the Nazis.’ This exact exaggeration is pointed out in a book called ‘A Gift for Treason’ by Daniel Jupp, where he laments about how he ‘came to realise that there are millions of people who consider the love of place, people and nation… as akin to the ‘blood and soil’ rhetoric of an actual Nazi.’
To be a nationalist comes down to two things. One is a sense of pride in your culture and the other is wanting your nation to succeed. When taken to the extremes, as with the fascism, it turns into arrogance and expansionism. This is more characteristic of EU internationalism than British or US nationalism (especially under Trump). Akala admits he has no pride in this nation, nor does he want it to succeed so when people ask him why he doesn’t leave, they’re not demanding he leaves and it’s not a racist question. They are simply wondering if somebody hates their country so much, surely it would make logical sense for them to find another country that they deem more suitable?
Conclusion
These are only my criticisms of the first two chapters but they effectively cover the general themes and ideas that Akala is presenting in the book. If I were to write a critique of every single misunderstanding, sign of manipulation or outright lie in this book - I would end up writing a book far longer that ‘Natives’ itself. I could have written a thousand words on how immoral it is to defend the Chinese government.
Many on right accuse people like Akala of being a Marxist because of their tendencies towards identity politics and cultural revolution. This would be a mistake because it implies that Akala understands what Marxism actually is. To me, Akala seems more like what Vladimir Lenin would describe as a ‘useful idiot’. This is essentially somebody who doesn’t quite have a logical understanding of the cause but is emotionally charged enough to advance the cause.
Akala’s greatest strength is his ability to perform as he’s made a living through convincing people he is an intellectual rather than by actually being an intellectual. To anybody who can think critically this book is nothing more than a rant that, were Akala not a B-list celebrity, would likely be assumed to have been written by a 15 year old on Facebook with access to Wikipedia, The Guardian and a thesaurus.