On Racism (against Blacks)

No treatise here.

I frequently am amazed how misunderstood the issue of racism is. People seem to think that racism is defined as when one does something because of race. And that really has little to with it. That's an easy abstract formula that people use to avoid the real ugly issue.

For instance, is it racist for me to hope that the Indianapolis Colts win the Superbowl because their coach Tony Dungy is Black, or hope the the Jets go very far because their coach Herm Edwards is Black? No. But, many would say, wait a minutes, what if I said I want the Steelers to win because their quarterback and coach are White? Well, the question would be, why? Why, because they are White?

Racism in the United States has only one template, slavery. Many moons ago, the self-evidently inferior Africans were kidnapped and brought over and made beasts of burden. Africans were subhuman and it wasn't a straight forward assumption that they had souls, gee that had to be discussed. Racism follows on that specific historical context. Racism is the patrimony of that veiw in more contemporary manifestations.

But then, our ubiquitous inerlocuter asks, what about Germany, no slave history there? Thanks locutus for setting me up for one of my pet peeves. Racism is not an abstract thing. American racism is only intelligible in the American context. German racism only makes sense within its own context. There is no blanket solution. Because it is called racism everywhere, does not make it the same thing. Of course, one could strip the term and give it generic meaning so that it applies to all instances of racism globally, then it becomes an emasculated concept with little or no relevance.

Racism is not what someone does because of race, but rahter why someone does what they do because of race given the specific historical context.

This is where the liberal problem is. We've gone for the abstract formulation and now everything belongs to the "Equal Opportunity" list: you know, thou shalt not discriminate based on "race, gender, creed, sexual orientation, age, disability, . . .." For liberals, everything that comes in the list is treated as the same. But they are not the same issues!

Locutus: Why not?

Because, first of all, in the current liberal mindset, we define all these things primarily as "characteristics discriminated against" as opposed defining them positively. Secondly, to be Black, is not same thing as being Latino, which is not the same as being Native, and all these are a different issue that being a woman, which is not the same as being 55 years old and shut out of a job, etc.

As liberals, we use a point system in our minds. So we say that if you are a Black disabled Lesbian, that equals -4, (lesbian implies woman, thus the extra point). But it doesn't work that way. Women's issues are women's issues. They are not Black issues, or gay issues, etc.

This is the difficulty of a liberal world, it is very detailed, complicated and unweildy, and this is why people tend to react and shrink back into simplicity and hate. But we'll only find the equation that can handle all these variables, if we take the time to make all the necessary distinctions.

So let it be written, so let it be done.