On Anti-Racism
There were only two choices, to stand with Derek Chauvin or to stand for George Floyd, America to its credit largely chose to stand for George Floyd. The killing of George Floyd, as captured in the widely-viewed video of Officer Chauvin kneeling on his neck, continues to haunt the collective consciousness of the nation. The incident prompted a wave of outrage and activism, with many politically engaged Americans rallying around the cause of racial justice and adopting new slogans and ideologies, including the concept of anti-racism.
This concept presupposed there must be two choices - racist and anti-racist. Were it only so easy. Anti-racism is not just an opposition to racism. Anti-racism is an ideology. It serves a useful function by providing a common language for action to resolve the perennial and ongoing racial disparity in America. Anti-racism is not just a rejection of racism, but a whole ideology that promotes racial equality. It provides a shared language and framework for addressing the persistent and ongoing racial inequalities in America.
Importantly, the anti-racism framework challenges the childish notion that individual outcomes are solely the result of individual effort. In reality, it is often group membership that leads to worse outcomes for Black people and better outcomes for white people, even when efforts are equal. *
Where the anti-racism worldview starts to lose steam is in it's peculiar vocabulary of bodies, privilege, spared injustice, and persons of color .** The way the words are used by Robin D'Angelo (White Fragility), and the Twitterverse threaten to derail any hope of improvement. For example, the emphasis on the social construction of bodies in postmodernism may be seen as downplaying the importance of biological differences and natural hierarchies. This focus on social construction may be seen as denying the inherent differences between people and as being used to justify policies or practices that undermine traditional values or social hierarchies. Additionally, the emphasis on social construction may be seen as promoting a victim mentality and discouraging personal initiative and self-improvement. The anti-racist vocabulary and meaning may serve to transform natural solidarity which is rooted in a human strength into either guilt or vindictive bile which are both self centered human weaknesses. Worst of all, negative expressions of weakness, like guilt or bile may serve to awaken the awful yet essentially dormant white group identity.
John McWhorter is a respected linguist and social commentator who has a wealth of experience and knowledge on issues of race and language. He has expressed his concerns about the way that Americans are discussing race and racism, arguing that certain strains of anti-racism have effectively become a religion that stifles nuance and debate. McWhorter believes that this approach to addressing racial inequality is not effective and is actually counterproductive to the goals of the civil rights movement. He has written a book on this topic called "Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America" and has been vocal in his critiques of political correctness in academia and the media.
Anti-racists may suggest that white group identity already exists, that we would be better to unmask the hidden and unspoken white racist culture, so as to slay it.*** Should we create the conditions that bring out the worst tendencies in people, particularly white group identity, we will not be revealing an essential truth to the satisfaction of some court of righteousness, no, instead we will have created a monster that will terrorize the people and threaten the republic.**** Consider that awful possibility and tell me "we are already there, we are a racist republic." "We are a fascist state." "We are a sick people." Yes. We have the potential to be those things, but we are not yet there.
The belief that individuals or groups of individuals are solely responsible for the systemic racism in America may lead us to believe that simply addressing those individuals will solve the issue. However, if we understand that racism, with its history in slavery and ongoing impact, is both personal and structural, we may focus on addressing the technical problems rather than individual actors.
Effective conversation about racism must involve listening and providing feedback. Imposing a single ideology, such as that of Robin D'Angelo, will not lead to productive discussions. Some may accept this ideology and denounce those who disagree, but the overall response will likely be negative, even if it is not initially expressed.
Let's have a national conversation that truly listens to all viewpoints and allows for the testing and development of ideas. It is possible to combat racism without adopting an anti-racism ideology.****
Notes:
*Group membership can tend to lead to worse outcomes for blacks and better outcomes for whites in cases with the same level of effort. An honest self-examination will likely bear this out to be true if you think back to some of your own experience, especially if you've ever gotten in any trouble
**You will note I did not include the term systemic or systematic racism in the discussion above about the religious language of anti-racism. This is because I believe the words fairly represent the present phenomenon. However I will suggest that our approach to system recognize the indifferent operation of the system as suggested by this definition:
a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces
rather than a purposeful operation under the control of people:
a group of devices or artificial objects or an organization forming a network especially for distributing something or serving a common purpose
***This is akin to stating that we should let a cancer metastasize so that we can see it, to prove that cancer was the overwhelming characteristic of the person the whole time. We may accept that people are driven by many tendencies, some overwhelming and some faint or subconscious.
****. Do not dare say, "oh, we are already there". It is alarming to consider the possibility of a repeat of the Rwandan genocide in the United States, where American whites could play the role of the Hutu and American blacks could play the role of the Tutsi. In the Rwandan genocide, the Hutu majority and government targeted the Tutsi minority, leading to the deaths of an estimated 500,000 to 1 million people. It is safe to say that the consequences would be catastrophic and devastating for both white and black Americans. The Rwandan genocide resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and had a devastating impact on the country and its people. A similar scenario in the United States would likely result in widespread violence, loss of life, and significant social and political upheaval. It would also have far-reaching and long-lasting effects on the country as a whole, including economic, social, and political instability.
***** Let us work to bring equality to America. Let us work against seeking and creating enemies where there are none.
As Kahlil Gibran said:
You are good when you are one with yourself.
Yet when you are not one with yourself you are not evil.
For a divided house is not a den of thieves; it is only a divided house.
We will get the right answer from a broad array of perspectives. Ideological purity will make us weak.
Michael Eric Dyson, Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter, Ta Nehisi Coates all bring something valuable to this conversation. Lets not accept ideological branding but instead seek truth.
コメント