Comments on: Can’t anti-racism be color-blind?

By: puredoxyk

puredoxyk — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:29:54 +0000

It’s interesting, how afraid we all are of being “labeled racist”. Have you noticed that, in many cases, the person who “labeled someone racist” is treated as if what they did is more serious than what the person being racist did?

I mention that partially because it’s one of the reasons anti-racist groups give for “needing” the sociological definition…though in actuality, I don’t think it solves that problem either.

The problem with eliminating prejudice — though you’re right; doing so would certainly kill off racism — is that prejudice happens inside people’s skulls. We can educate them out of it, but it’ll take generations of concentrated effort, and always we’ll be beating back the tide of xenophobia and fear. In the meantime, though, racist ACTS need addressing — I agree with the anti-racists there. I’m just not as sure as they are that vilifying whites is the way to go about it.

Thanks for your comment!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:46:42 +0000

Nice write-up. I was a little bothered that nobody seems to mention the leader of the Executive branch of the U.S. is black. I think it’s disingenuous to say that only whites have institutional power when the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD IS AFRICAN-AMERICAN. That is one point.

My other thought is, the “colloquial” definition is that racism is prejudice. The “sociological” definition is that racism is “prejudice + power” but … if you eliminate prejudice, which is the root cause of both definitions of racism, you fix BOTH definitions… if racism is prejudice, then eliminating prejudice eliminates it. If racism is prejudice + power, then eliminating prejudice also eliminates it. Solution we should be able to agree on: eliminate prejudice.

Posted anonymously because unfortunately, I can’t make the above comment without being labeled as a racist. (But I’m not a victim of racism!)

By: puredoxyk

puredoxyk — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:25:25 +0000

I think it’s oversimplifying to equate anti-racism with anti-white, not leastaways because to some extent, it has to be that way. I certainly don’t think the movement is driven by greed. But I do think it needs serious re-focusing on the actual problem of racism.

Thanks,
PD

By: jonolan

jonolan — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:15:32 +0000

The first thing that must be understood is that the “anti-racist” community is actually the “anti-White” community. They are not interested in ending racism, only in punishing White people in any way that they can so that they – the non-Whites – can get more stuff.

By: Bulletin Board v55 « Toy Soldiers

Bulletin Board v55 « Toy Soldiers — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:22:50 +0000

[...] Can’t anti-racism be color-blind? — Maybe it’s the philosopher in me, but I don’t see how any argument against racism that depends on color to make its point is valuable in the long run. If the goal is to end racism, which I hope it is, then shouldn’t we be engaged in activities and rhetoric that de-emphasize skin color (etc.) as a valid reason to make political (and by extension certain types of personal) decisions? [...]

By: B. Waite

B. Waite — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:40:24 +0000

In the article you linked to, the author (and perhaps the anti-racist community in general–I’m not sure) has redefined the word racism. There’s nothing wrong with that in principle.

A definition is a great way to find common ground in a debate. Words are nuanced, so it’s important to agree on the meaning of the terms we use.

But in this case, the definition the author chose is at best confusing, and at worst inflammatory. As you mentioned, it completely discounts the racism suffered by anyone outside the author’s camp.

But, I’ll give the author the benefit of the doubt. I’ll assume that the only thing we disagree on is a definition. Decent human beings generally share the same core values, and as long as we recognize that, we’ll be okay.