Abstract

This paper builds on two of James Baldwin’s insights concerning the epistemic effects of American racism on Black Americans. I argue that he anticipated important points later raised by José Medina and Charles Mills, according to which those subjected to discrimination may have an epistemic advantage over discriminators, are an advantage in terms of what Medina later called meta-lucidity. Building on another one of Baldwin’s insights, I then argue that racial discrimination (and by extension other forms of discrimination) can also epistemically harm those subjected to it. In doing so, I relate this harm to the topic of epistemic injustice, and draw connections to work done on relevant alternatives in epistemology, on micro-aggressions, and on self-trust. I also consider the extent to which the epistemic advantage that may arise from being subjected to discrimination may mitigate the epistemic harm it inflicts.