With several recent cases in the US, it has become obvious that many people no longer understand what the term racist means, especially as applied to themselves.One case was Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
Read more at Huffington Post
So he refuses to marry an interracial couple, but still claims to not be a racist. His definition of racist is that you hate another race, which he claims he does not.
I think it's time that people were forced to admit to their racism, because until you admit you are sick, you can't get better.
In the Bardwell case, let's start with logic. His defense is that he is not opposed to black people marrying each other, he just will not deal with a mixed marriage because (A) they don't last and (B) The children suffer.
If we go by logic, I could point out that Barack Obama is the president of the USA, and he is mixed race. So by any objective measure he is an example of a mixed race child who is not suffering.
What about the point that mixed race marriages don't last? That would be a generalization, based on race, that takes away the freedom of a person based on their skin colour. In other words, this Justice of the Peace believes your right to be married is based on your skin colour.
Since the "black" man who is marrying the white woman, could be mixed race already, (my picture is from another couple) this Justice of the Peace is setting up a situation where he could not marry a black woman either. That would also be a mixed race marriage. So just who could he marry? If you do not allow someone to marry that is not "equal" treatment.
The real problem is not about logic, it is with Bardwell's incorrect definition of racism. You cannot define it only as "hating the other race". That is a weak definition that lets almost anyone who is a good liar pretend to not be racist. It allows people who are in denial to convince themselves they are not racist. For an example you only need to listen to fundamental Christians, who claim to "love Palestinians" but support moves to eradicate them because they threatened God's chosen people in Israel. Apparently it is possible to profess love while simultaneously calling for extermination. I'm not going to call this attitude hypocritical, but it is a psychological reality we have to deal with.
It was also pretty easy for the slave owners to flog their slaves to death on suspicion of petty offenses, while claiming to love their slaves. So the definition of racism being "hate" has got to go.
A better definition of racism is believing that your race is superior. When you believe your race is superior, you don't want to see any mixed children, because now you don't know whether they are superior or not, and they threaten your entire racist world view.
Spreading hate about a race is also racism. This way, at least you cannot deny something in your heart, you can be judged on what you say about the other race. That's why Rush Limbaugh recently was denied ownership of an NFL club, not because of what he felt hidden in his heart, but what he openly said on television and radio. So spreading hate is a better definition of racism than feeling it in your heart, because it is based on behaviour and evidence. And even Rush thinks he is not a racist in spite of all his comments, I guess he also uses Bardwell's definition.
Just to clarify some of this stuff, lets have some examples. For example, Rush Limbaugh declaring that black kids are beating up white kids in schools. Or Christians sending around emails declaring that Moslems are taking over the world by higher birth rates. Both of those spread hate, whether the statements are true or not. In propaganda you can always find an isolated example or twist the definitions and statistics to sound scary. The act of spreading hate is racist.
If you simply make a statement of a fact that does not normally stimulate hatred in other people, you are not really acting as a racist. For example if you say that black people are generally over represented in prisons, that could be simply a fact and does not necessarily spread hate. If you note that Canadian First Nations people have a genetic trait that makes it hard for them to purge alcohol from the blood stream, that is a scientific fact that does not promote hate, it actually helps understanding of a problem.
The new term "Playing the race card" is an interesting replacement for the word "racism". The phrase suggests that racism is a hidden card that you can play to gain a winning hand. It implies that when it comes out then both side are permitted to use it. I don't think this phrase is very helpful in understanding racial problems. But it would be good if we could come up with a definition that makes sense before we try to eliminate racism.
I consider there are actually two aspects to racism.
ReplyDeleteFirst is a belief that there are inherent characteristics that render members of a particular racial (or ethnic) group different (superior or inferior) to members of other racial groups.
Then there's the question of one acting on the basis of that belief (or ideology).
The first aspect (of belief or ideology) you deal with in your Limbaugh example and is, of course, more difficult to address as a society, compared to the latter.
The latter we do attempt to deal with through discrimination prohibitions based on race or ethnic origin.
Although it leverages our inbuilt xenophobia ('fear of the other' or basic tribalism) racism is now essentially a system of group privilege and, as such, readily finds adherents in members of the privileged group. Examples are rampant.
But, as you suggest in your Obama example, race (like sex - or gender, if you prefer) is not a matter of 'black or white' (no pun intended).
And, to dismiss Bardwell's feeble excuse ... if he was sincere, he would refuse to issue any couple a license, because 'most [American] marriages do not last long.' [Source]
Apologies ... typo in my ... source reference.
ReplyDelete