I have recently read a blog post on Huffington Post entitled "Why I'm a Racist..." In it, the author essentially describes a definition of racism, using his own life and situation. As first I thought that the article was satirical, but it did not take long to realise that he is completely serious, and I disagree with him strongly. Based on what he describes of himself, his family, and his upbringing, I could not honestly call him racist. He seems to me a very decent human being with very progressive intentions. His definition of racism, as I understand it, is broad to the point of being meaningless.
He explicitly says that he is not describing his racism as outright bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination on the basis of skin colour -- though I have no doubt that he understands these things as racism. He describes it as the very fact of being white and therefore not subject to the negative stereotypes and other perceptions that lead to inequities in terms of the judgement of character and behaviour. While it may be true that he does not have to worry about these things, I think that only makes him fortunate and not racist.
Let's take a hypothetical situation. Let's make the author a black man raised in a reasonably well-off family in a region where racism simply is not an issue. His community is multi-cultural both in composition and character and therefore people judge each other based on their individual merits and virtues. He therefore lives quite apart from the inequities that black men face in other communities. He is ignorant, for example, of what it is like to have to worry about getting shot by a police officer for mistakenly moving the wrong way when reaching for his wallet. Is he still racist? I think that a ridiculous notion.
Being racist has nothing to do with the colour of one's skin, or the social climate of one's upbringing and community relative to others. It is not about how little one has been denigrated or denied. It's about what one believes about others based on their ethnic identity or skin colour. Belief and intent, and often the actions that result from them, are central to defining racism.
Including accidents of birth and upbringing as making one racist dilutes serious instances of racism. It also unnecessarily denigrates otherwise decent people. I feel that it fosters a tribalistic "with us or against us" mentality that does not match reality. I would agree completely with the author that it is best to actively fight against social inequities, but inactivity -- however much it honestly does not help matters -- is not the same as being racist.
"Let's make the author a black man raised in a reasonably well-off family in a region where racism simply is not an issue." Where is that? Perhaps Canada has these places. America doesn't. Because I assure you, if he were raised and cloistered in a wealthy all-black gated community (and I don't think even that exists), everything would change the second he passed that gate.
ReplyDeleteYour definition of racism is too narrow: "outright bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination on the basis of skin colour." If you were black, at least in the U.S., you'd be painfully aware that racism can take subtler and more insidious forms. Like when a cop asks a black person, "Where did you get this car?" (Translation: Did you steal this car?) I've never been asked that. If their car is nice, black people get asked that all the time.
"It's about what one believes about others based on their ethnic identity or skin colour." Well, that's certainly part of racism, but again, it goes deeper than that. The wonderful thing about being white in America is we don't have to think about the more subtle forms if we don't want to. We can skate through blissfully unaware if we like. Black people don't get to make that choice.
Suppose you meet a black woman on a plane and learn she's a professor. You say, "Good for you!" Is that racist? Yes, it is, because though well-intentioned, you'd never say that to a white woman professor, or certainly a white man. "Good for you" implies, "I expected less and I'm pleasantly surprised." Since she gets that shit all the time, she might even hear, "congratulations for pulling yourself out of the ghetto." So it goes beyond intent. A person with good intentions can still say insulting or hurtful things if they haven't been exposed to other perspectives. The author of the article is trying to learn these perspectives, and I think that's good.
I think that decent people can still be racist. They are not mutually exclusive. People with good intentions, who believe in their heart that everyone should be and are equal, can still say and do racist things. I can't speak for Canadian culture, but here, these attitudes creep in via everyday life. So whenever people say that racism would be over if everyone just treated each other as equals, that's a crude and uninformed take on the complexities of the issue. It's like saying poverty would be over if lazy people just tried harder.
Finally, I don't think the author is saying that racism = being white. He's saying that white Americans are uncomfortable with and defensive about racial inequalities, such discomfort and defensiveness largely resulting from insufficient understanding of the black experience. Is there a downside to recognizing this, and do you really think it makes divisions worse for the historically dominant group to admit that these subtleties and complexities exist?
"Where is that?"
DeleteIt's completely hypothetical, perhaps literally utopian, for all I know. The point is that the only thing distinguishing this hypothetical person's life from the author's is his skin colour. He is not racist for being fortunate and ignorant of the experiences of black people in the US.
"Your definition of racism is too narrow: 'outright bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination on the basis of skin colour.'"
Well, we all classify this as racism, but this isn't my actual definition. I'm paraphrasing part of the article, here. My brief definition is later in my post:
"It's about what one believes about others based on their ethnic identity or skin colour."
So the "Where did you get this car?" question is covered. The police officer is possibly suspicious based on the individual's skin colour.
I agree that there's more to racism than what is described in that sentence. I also understand that remarks might be racist without the speaker intending them to be. However, I think it's up to people to allow for the possibility that the remark may have been made in ignorance and that had the individual known it was offensive, he or she would not have said it. There's no need to cry racism every time someone misspeaks. Granted, tensions being what they are in some regions, it does not surprise me when people aren't so generous as I hope they should be.
"I can't speak for Canadian culture..."
I have a coworker from Alabama who notes that natives here and black people back home are interchangeable in the way they are treated. There certainly is racism in Canada, mostly toward our First Nations population. Those with whom I have worked have been stellar individuals, but having seen my share of homeless/unemployed "drunken natives" on the street (there's more to it than that, of course, but that's another discussion), I can see how the stereotypes and other preconceptions unfairly permeate the public consciousness.
"Is there a downside to recognizing this, and do you really think it makes divisions worse for the historically dominant group to admit that these subtleties and complexities exist?"
No, but none of that is material to my point. The author is not racist. He may be unable to completely empathise with the realities that many black people face and may feel uncomfortable with confronting these issues, but that implies no objective guilt. He is, of course, free to call his own feelings of guilt racism, but the word is so loaded with more severe connotations that I think it hyperbolic to apply it here. To me it's just white guilt.