The exchange between Daniel and me below testifies to the range of phenomena which may be grouped under the broad term of "racism." Here’s the entry from Dictionary.com :
- The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
- Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
That helps a lot, huh? These definitions seem plain enough, but they would place a statement such as "The people of northern Europe tend to be more reserved than those of southern Europe" in the category of racism–it meets the first half of definition 1 (at least if you’re willing to think of those two groups as having a racial difference) and is certainly a prejudice as in definition 2. Neither of these really touch on the question of hostility or ill will, which to me is the essence of the idea of racism as something invidious.
I may regret opening this can of worms, but it seems like our official and accepted doctrines about race are extremely confused. Group characteristics do exist (whether they’re the product of genetics or culture is irrelevant), but we’ve put ourselves in the position of pretending they don’t at some times, while insisting on them at other times, indeed requiring that they be acted upon. In general, it’s permissible to notice group characteristics if they’re positive, but not if they’re negative, with an exception for groups generally regarded as oppressors.
I have no tolerance whatsoever for race-based hostility, and was on the anti-segregation side growing up in the civil-rights era South. But it seems that we now have a hyper-sensitivity that’s actually exacerbating things. No real point here, I’m really just wondering aloud, as one can do on a blog. Would be interested in what other people have to say. Someday I may write at length on this topic.
—Maclin Horton
The example you give is not a racist statement unless one also holds that emotional reserve is superior somehow to emotional expression.
I think the definition is a good one; it allows recognizing racial differences as long as one doesn’t hold to racial superiority.
Personally, I think it would be hard to hold for racial roots explaining the differences of cultures. In the example you give, northern and southern Europeans are both of the same [Caucasion] race. And among blacks there are very big differences between Africans and African-Americans, as there are between, say, Vietnamese and Koreans, or Navajo and Zuni.
You’re right, I wrote that post hurriedly at the end of the day and I see now that I mentally misplaced the “or” after “character” in the first definition, and read the sentence as saying that belief in racial differences is racism.
I was kind of erring on the side of caution in my north-south example, trying to pick something that wouldn’t offend anybody. Race is kind of a slippery concept, and the word has been used in the past for more subtle differences than, say, Asian and European. I was thinking specifically of a couple I know: she’s Italian, he’s Swedish (by descent, I mean–both are third-gen Americans, at least). And I’ve heard a certain amount of “Italians are..” and “Scandinavians are…” from them. In particular I remember the woman talking with going to her in-laws for Christmas and saying with real horror and disgust “All the food was white!”
But anyway, the statement I made was neutral, but such statements could be and certainly have been made as pejoratives on both sides. And you can get away with things like that if they’re not done with hostility. “Italians are more spontaneous than Swedes”–fine. “Italians are less prudent than Swedes”–getting questionable. “Italians are irresponsible”–look out. It’s taking a trait, looking at it negatively, and making it a defining characteristic that is the specifically invidious aspect of making generalizations about a group.
I think the relation between race and culture is very much like the relation between genes and environment for an individual–in fact, the same thing at the collective level. Seems to me that they both play a part, and really can’t be separated in practice. Yes, Africans and African-Americans are different, but there are similarities, too, the role of rhythm in the music being a huge one that kind of jumps out.
Oh, by the way, the “Darktown” guy I mentioned in the other thread–he really didn’t sound hostile, and I don’t think he would behave badly toward black people. But it was a surprisingly crude thing to say.
Daniel Nichols writes: “it allows recognizing racial differences as long as one doesn’t hold to racial superiority.”
That is complete nonsense. You might as well say white wine is different from red wine, but I can’t say one is superior. Well I can. Give me red wine.
If I’m hiring a basketball shooting guard, I’m looking to blacks as superior because I want someone who can jump. And so it goes with every other material affect.
Quota systems exist because some men are superior to other men, men are not all equal and cannot complete on a level playing field. Just like whites cannot complete for shooting guard.
Men are superior to women, that is simply the way it is.
.
I think one difficulty you face in this endeavour is that the term ‘racist’ retains considerable rhetorical power but is often used in ways that are baffling or smell of rhetorical gamesmanship. The literary critic ‘bell hooks’ once accused Madonna Ciccone of ‘racist aggression’ because a crucifix depicted in one of her music videos sported a negroid Christ; the film director Spike Lee has said that blacks cannot be racist because one can only be racist if one is socially superordinate (ignoring the fact that the majority of causcasians in this country are working-class and not at all superordinate).
One can adhere to a view that races may be stratified according to desirable characteristics and not be notably hostile to the interests of any given stratum. One can be paternalistic toward other races but regard them without malice (something I will conjecture was fairly common among bourgeois Southerners of a certain age). I do not think the fictional Atticus Finch would qualify as a racial egalitarian.
Merely remarking empirically verifiable differences in behavior between ascribed groups does not qualify as ‘racist’ under the first definition because such a remark says nothing of causes, much less ascribe the cause to some occult essence revealed in phenotype.
I think normative judgments about matters moral or aesthetic may be evaluated by making use of discursive reasoning. The sociological question of who is more or less likely to adhere to a certain moral norm or acquire a certain taste would be non sequitur in the course of making such an evaluation unless it be antecedently understood that some group’s behaviours or tastes were some sort of gold standard. (Which, it seems to me, would be ‘racist’.). Those sociological questions will likely have answers that are empirically true or false, make of them what you will.
A suggestion: a dispostion ought be classified as ‘racist’ if it incoroporates the inclination to treat people as if they had no individuality and no free will, but were merely epiphenomena of the racial collectivity.
I think I mostly agree with Art Deco here. I think of Spike Lee’s dictum often when pondering this topic, because it indicates how problematic the word “racism” has become, problematic in that its definition is not only vague but substantially different among different parties to the controversy.
I’m not so sure about that second paragraph–the hierarchical suggestion–because it looks to me like every group has its strengths and weaknesses, and you can’t really say “superior” without also answering the question “in what respect?” In fact I sometimes think I’m the only one who really does believe the “strength in diversity” stuff, which typically is just cant.
More on this another time–I’m about to start a very busy week (even if we don’t have another %$@@!#!*@ hurricane) and probably won’t have the mental leisure to comment any further on this, although assuredly I’ll read what anyone else has to say.
This I guess is to Daniel: I think part of the reason I took exception to the quick assumption of a racial element in the problems with the Katrina relief effort is that it seems to me that if such an assumption is ok for black people in regard to the relief effort, then it’s ok for white people in regard to the thugs who also played such a prominent role in the sorry drama.
A parting thought: in the words of Nick Lowe, what’s so funny about peace, love, and understanding?
I thought Elvis Costello said that.
And of course there is black racism too; they are not so often given the opportunity to express it.
And I dare say black folks were victimized more often than whites by the thugs…
Elvis Costello’s version is more widely known, but Nick Lowe wrote it.
No doubt at all that black folks were victimized more often by the thugs, as is the case with crime in general, but that doesn’t really affect the expectable white reaction (“I better stay away from ‘those people'”).
At the risk of confusing this thread even more, I would like to suggest that just as it is a misuse of terms to speak of the “Italian race,” so it is a misuse to speak of the white or Caucasian or black or any other race. There is only the human race. Yes, there are physical and perhaps other characteristics (though I think most of these can be explained by culture) among the peoples of the world, but there is only one race. An analogy: people differ by hair color, but it would be absurd to speak of the red-headed race or group. Why? Because red hair comes in all shades and degrees and fades off into other hair colors. To draw a line and say that everyone with a certain degree of red hair is part of the red-headed group would be silly. The same is true for skin color or other physical characteristics. We certainly could line up all the people of the world from darkest to lighest skin, but it would be entirely arbitrary to insert a dividing line and say, All the people on this side of the line are white and all the people on the other side are black, etc. This is why I think that Latin Americans have less of a difficulty with “race” than North Americans of Protestant culture (including most Catholics). They simply see people of various skin colors, but tend to see culture as more important than some artificial line drawn among a motley set of humans. I’m not denying that Latin Americans might tend to favor people with lighter skin – simply that they don’t set up a dividing line and say, Everyone on this side of the line is white, everyone on the other side is black.
Well said, Tom; we are all children of Adam, are we not?
An anthropology professor at my college maintained Mr. Storck’s position, saying that race cannot be objectively defined. One classmate used herself as a supporting example: “My ancestors are black, white, and Native American. Which am I?” Sons of Adam, Daughters of Eve, really ought to help us remember our kinship.
Well yeah, folks, of course we’re all God’s chillun, and we need to keep that in mind. But it doesn’t change the fact that we fall into very clearly identifiable, in fact impossible to ignore, groupings with different characteristics. At least until intermarriage blurs the groups sufficiently (which I think is part of why the situation in Latin America is different).
“Race” is indeed a very vague and slippery term, and I’d just as soon figure out a way to discard it. “Race” as an abstraction may not have a precise definition (I think “precise” or “scientific” is a better term than “objective”), but nobody can reasonably argue that it’s impossible to describe Asians and Africans, to pick two general types, in a way that’s perfectly objective and would enable a visitor from outer space to recognize them when he saw them.
I guess in all this I’m working toward the idea that we may as well not try to pretend that the differences which, for want of a better word, we call “racial” are not real and significant–partly because it’s impossible to stop the human mind from engaging in the very fundamental activity of pattern recognition–and work from that assumption, rather than pretending they aren’t there.
p.s. the obvious answer to the classmate is “You’re a mixture.” She couldn’t ask her question if people didn’t know what she meant by “black,” “white,” and “Native American.”
p.p.s.: I once knew somebody whose father was Native American / Indian (I’m not sure which is considered good manners nowadays) and mother was black/African-American. She had extremely beautiful skin, kind of the classic cafe-au-lait that you sometimes see in Euro-African mixtures, but with a sort of coppery glow.
Several years ago, I protested the neo-Nazis and the Black Muslims, just weeks apart, carying the same sign: “Racism is Blasphemy!” Even atheistic science admits we’re all members of the same extended family!