A few days ago, I was listening to an installment of the Vox podcast The Weeds. Jane Coaston, not a Weeds regular, but also from Vox, was recounting an incident when she, a biracial woman, was out with her mother, who is white. At a moment when she was far enough away from her mother to not be obviously with her, she was approached by a guy from the Nation of Islam. He was regaling her with the whites-are-devils Nation of Islam line, when her mother came up to her. The guy was taken aback and really angry.
Ms. Coaston's comment on the incident was that, while this man was full of racial hate, he wasn't an example of racism. She didn't elaborate too much, but I think the point was that, absent the power to oppress, there can be no racism. Probably what has happened here is that after years of promoting the notion that racism is not just individual conscious prejudice, but can be the disadvantages and violence built into a social system that an individual can unknowingly participate in, one large segment of the liberal/progressive community has wholly abandoned the notion that racism can be meaningfully located in one person's thoughts and feelings. I am entirely convinced that systemic racism exists and is a significant force in the world. But I don't see why we should shift the definition from one thing to another thing, rather than just extend the definition from the individual to the systemic, which was the original impetus. That walking through the darkness with a flaming torch illuminates what is ahead by obscuring what is behind is a metaphor we do not need here.
Actually, I think I do see why the definition has shifted. First, removing the possibility that an member of an oppressed minority can be racist, no matter how irrational their prejudice or how indiscriminate their hatred of everyone in some other group, helps in retaining the absolute virtue of the oppressed. This makes the struggle for justice seem simpler and more straightforward than it likely is. And then there is the postmodern sense that everything reduces to power relationships. So then an impotent hatred of another race is not racism at all.
Ms. Coaston's comment on the incident was that, while this man was full of racial hate, he wasn't an example of racism. She didn't elaborate too much, but I think the point was that, absent the power to oppress, there can be no racism. Probably what has happened here is that after years of promoting the notion that racism is not just individual conscious prejudice, but can be the disadvantages and violence built into a social system that an individual can unknowingly participate in, one large segment of the liberal/progressive community has wholly abandoned the notion that racism can be meaningfully located in one person's thoughts and feelings. I am entirely convinced that systemic racism exists and is a significant force in the world. But I don't see why we should shift the definition from one thing to another thing, rather than just extend the definition from the individual to the systemic, which was the original impetus. That walking through the darkness with a flaming torch illuminates what is ahead by obscuring what is behind is a metaphor we do not need here.
Actually, I think I do see why the definition has shifted. First, removing the possibility that an member of an oppressed minority can be racist, no matter how irrational their prejudice or how indiscriminate their hatred of everyone in some other group, helps in retaining the absolute virtue of the oppressed. This makes the struggle for justice seem simpler and more straightforward than it likely is. And then there is the postmodern sense that everything reduces to power relationships. So then an impotent hatred of another race is not racism at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment