Of course, it is also likely that each of us knows or hears something different. So...it might be interesting to look at definitions that are available on the web.
I figured maybe looking at Britannica would be a good place to start:
"Racism, also called racialism, any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others. Since the late 20th century the notion of biological race has been recognized as a cultural invention, entirely without scientific basis."
Not really a good definition because it lacks specificity - it is overly general, or double-barreled. It's first definition is that it reflects the belief that humanity can be divided into existing biological categories known as races. Indeed, this seems fairly obvious and hardly controversial. Even those who are constantly race baiting inherently believe this.
Secondly, while it is not as acceptable socially, there is a fair amount of science that supports position two - that there are physical and personality traits that may typify those in a category. Hell, I learned that watching comedy jam on BET - the comics were funny as hell and really good at lampooning white people, from their milquetoast speech patterns to walking like they have a stick up their ass. But since the "races" evolved largely in isolation, and their cultures, personality, physical characteristics and abilities - as well as their skin color - are adaptations to those disparate environments, it follows that they are different. That is not, however, to say that there is no within race variability.
Where they then go a bit off the rails is that their definition then conflates those realistic notions with the belief in innate superiority of one race over another. If this is true then either everyone is racist or no one is racist. Certainly the implication to be drawn from those comedians referenced above was that there was a right way and a wrong way to be - and those who are the wrong way are appropriate fodder for comedy. Is there a race, religion, or creed that does not consider itself better than others and find humor in those differences? I suspect those comedians would recognize that superiority is context-specific. Many of the black friends I have worked with have told me they have their "white" voice and their "black" voice. They know what works in what contexts. Many white friends I have are similar. Hell, go to any gym and see Billy Bob the lilly-white executive come in wearing his suit and come out of the locker room dressed in ghetto.
Lastly they exhibit the same hubris that so many people have in the past few decades - because they think something is true, it must be. At best, if race is a social construction, it is based on more than our imagination. From whence to these constructions come? Ask those black comics if I am wrong.
On to Merriam-Webster:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Number 1 is nothing new. However, I would say that, if one thinks that racism reflects identifying race as the "primary determinant," then the vast majority of what is being called racism today is not, in fact, racism. If that assertion is the case, then referring to a "person of color" as ignorant, traitorous, or whatever is not racist. There is a difference between being labelled a traitor because one is black (racism) and being labelled a traitor while black (not racism).
Number 2 - and to some extent 2b - are institutionalized racism. However, I think there are problems with that idea as well. Most notably, that it is a post-hoc explanation - if a member of a group does not succeed in the system, then the system is assumed to be racist. In fact, in many ways those who look at such examples - say note that people fail in society because of their race - then they are, but the above definition, racists - regardless of their own race.
Ah, Number 3. Here we can make some headway. So, say Congresswomen X is black. Say she consistently criticizes the president, the nation, and everyone who does not agree with her. Say she is anti-Semitic and pro-terror. Is calling her a "women of color" incorrect? No, it is what she would call herself. Is telling her she should return to the land she left to come to the US racism? No. Is this prejudice? No - there is ample evidence to judge this person's character independent of her race, color, or creed. As noted above, saying someone is ignorant because they are a woman of color is racists. Say they are a woman of color who is ignorant is not.If it were, then race, color or creed constitute a "get out of criticism free" card.
Trump's Tweet
So, the essence of Trump's tweets: "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how...".
I don't see race in there...yes, he is referring to four congresswomen who happen to be women of color - and who find it of great utility to interpret any criticism of them as reflecting their "color". Hell they even accused Pelosi of that. And one of them plainly showed her own racist tendencies when she attacked other "people of color" for not agreeing with her - as in, we don't need any more black faces that are not black voices. Clearly she is insisting on her own definitions.
However, it should be clear to all of those who have repeatedly screamed about Trump's boorish behavior, that he is an equal opportunity critic. He would not hesitate to say the same thing about anyone, regardless of color - and in fact has already done so (revisit his tweets and rhetoric regarding his primary opponents in 2016). Good or bad, he is a prick to everyone.
The progressive democrat and media approach suggests that no one can speak ill of anyone who is "of color", no matter what they say or do. To consider the opinion of a person, who is also "of color" idiotic has become, by default, racist. In truth, that assertion itself is a better fit for the existing definitions of racism than anything Trump said - that race/color creates a hierarchical system where some are above criticism, are held to a different standard.
Racism?
Am I saying racism does not exist? No. It exists in many places and in many ways. The idea of white privilege is racism given above definitions....it asserts that the race, the color (or lack thereof apparently) is a main determinant, a cause.
But because racism should rightly be viewed as heinous by our society, regardless of whom it is perpetrated against, tying that term to others becomes a handy tool for those who wish to bludgeon those others into submission. Calling everything one dislikes as racism, calling any criticism of a "person of color" racism, denigrates the concept. It not considered racism to call Trump's supporters "deplorables?" It was not considered racism for AOC to call Trump supporters "garbage?" Rightfully so. Nor is it racism to ask for congresspeople why, if they are unhappy with this country, they don't go elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment