Definitions are important. Words mean something for
a reason, and when they are misused, the result is confusion. When you attempt
to rectify the confusion by changing the definition of the word instead of
choosing a different word, things just go from bad to worse.
First, let's start with the definition of the word
Racism. I'm going with Oxford on this one, just because. First, we have:
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed
against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is
superior:
The second definition
is:
The belief that all members of each race possess
characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to
distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
This is pretty straightforward. Racism is when
someone (or a group, organization, government, etc.) sees or treats someone as
inferior or superior based solely on their race. The first definition
covers being treated differently based on this belief, the second definition is
the belief in itself.
Let's also get the definition of Prejudice so we're
all on the same page:
Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason
or actual experience.
And:
Dislike, hostility, or unjust behavior deriving
from unfounded opinions.
In this case, if you
are prejudiced, you believe something that is technically illogical, or treat
someone negatively because of this illogical belief. Personally, I am not
comfortable with this definition, as having a preconceived opinion not based on
reason or experience could be easily applied to religious belief, which is a
faith beyond reason or experience. But, this is what we've been given, so let's
deal with it.
Before we go any
further, let us dispense with the term Reverse Racism. This is not a real
thing. Not for the same reasons that some people are claiming that black people
can't be racist, but for the fact that it does not adhere to the definition of
racism. Reverse Racism implies the opposite
of racism. Going by the definition of racism as quoted above, that would mean
NOT seeing
or treating someone differently based solely on their race. Claiming that a
black person being prejudice against a white person is the opposite of racism implies that racism is only when a white person
is prejudiced against a black person. Reverse Racism is a racist term in itself
that further confuses the issue, and is not based in any kind of logic or
reason. Now that we've got that out of the way...
My first point may seem
a bit inflammatory, but if you're patient you'll see that I'm not just trying
to piss people off. The argument that black people cannot be racist is not new,
but it has been gaining a strong foothold lately with Black Lives Matter, a
necessary and mostly reasonable civil rights movement created in the wake of a
rash of (sadly not uncommon) unjustified killings of unarmed black children by
police officers, as well as injuries and fatalities resulting from overly excessive
force used by police when dealing with black people. There are literally way
too many to list, just do a Google search and be prepared for some very
depressing results. So, let's start this by pointing out the major flaw of the
Black Lives Matter movement that is compounding all of this confusion:
Black Lives Matter is
not trying to stop Racism.
If you think my opinion
in this case doesn't matter because I am white, just stop reading and save us
both the hassle. What I'm saying is that racism is a personal
belief or opinion OR actions applied based on that belief. If we're being
totally logical here, we have to admit that we cannot prevent people from being
racist. Racism and prejudice are both a belief or opinion. Behavior based on
those opinions is covered by their definition, but it is still behavior based
on a belief, and the belief is not dependent on the behavior. You don't have to
act out on a racist belief in order for it to be racism; all you need to do is
believe it. To think that we can actively alter what people believe is
foolhardy to say the least. Governments in the past that have attempted to
outlaw religious faiths or political movements have proven this firsthand.
People cling to opinions and beliefs and defend them passionately, often times
in the face of reason. Sure, you can slowly, gradually, with time and patience,
change someone's mind. But just demanding that a specific opinion be abandoned
based solely on your opinion? Good luck with that.
So, when I say that
Black Lives Matter isn't trying to stop racism, I'm not selling some bizarre
Sean Hannity conspiracy theory that it's a Muslim hate group comparable to the
KKK. What I mean is that the Black Lives Matter movement is really trying to
stop institutionalized racism on a judicial
and political level. It doesn't fit well into a hashtag, but it's the
reality of the situation. The movement was born out of the fatal shootings of
unarmed black children by police, shootings that were covered up by police,
governments officials, and in some cases, even the media. These acts have
pointed to a still-present racism inherent in a system that treats black people
as lesser individuals, ignores basic human rights, and then systematically
tries to hide this bias when it results in inexcusable injuries and/or fatalities.
Obviously, the
injustices don't stop there. From disproportionate criminal punishments and
prison populations to shady laws - such as Stop & Frisk - designed to
bypass civil rights, the racist undertones in many judicial and legislative
actions can be easily demonstrated. This needs to change, and Black Lives
Matter is the latest movement dedicating itself to doing so. They are trying to
address the issue that black people are being treated unfairly, negatively, and
often oppressively, by our government and law enforcement.
What they aren't trying
to do is make you like them. They aren't trying to say "You can't hate me
just because I'm black." What they are saying is "You can't treat me
as an inferior just because I am black." And this is where the confusion
sets in. Because even though what they are fighting against is
institutionalized racist policies and behaviors, they've decide to cover it all
under the umbrella of the word Racism. And the fun begins.
So Black Lives Matters
comes out against institutionalized racist policies and behaviors, but says it
is fighting Racism. Within their arguments are a lot of references to white
people, some of them not so nice, but possibly deserved if you consider the
actions of the past being perpetrated by the white race as a whole. The
response by some, and logically so, is that if you are speaking out against
judging people based solely on their race - the definition of racism - and in
doing so judge me based solely on me being white, then you are being racist as
well.
I will argue, for the
record, that this is a logical argument. This is not to say that many who use
it are not doing so just to avoid the real topic at hand, institutionalized
racist policies and behaviors, but despite the motivations of the person making
this argument, the logic is sound. So, in choosing a simple word with a broad
definition to combat a much more complex situation, the Black Lives Matter
movement has stumbled into muddy waters. They've given their detractors a way to
claim hypocrisy on their part and avoid the issue at hand. The correct way to
solve this confusion would have been to say "You're talking about racist
beliefs. We are talking about institutionalized racist policies and behaviors
that effect our entire community on a social, economic, and politic level."
Instead, what they did is change the definition of the word Racism and declare
that white people can't be racist because they aren't being systematically
oppressed by the law and government by the black population.
Now, Black Lives Matter
is technically correct in using the word racism for stopping institutionalized
racism on a judicial and political level, as that is covered by the definition.
However, they are technically incorrect in claiming that black people are not
capable of racism against white people based solely on the specific aspect of
the definition that they are using. Yes, definitions can gradually change over
time, but this is usually a gradual and unanimous within a culture as a whole, not
an on-the-spot change made by a specific group to make their arguments easier
to make in twitter posts. And beyond that, this is a change in definition only
being applied to one specific situation. Under this new warped definition of
the word Racism, a white person could say to a black person, "I hate you
because of the color of your skin, and what that color represents on a genetic
and historical level," and that person would be (rightfully) declared a
racist. Now reverse the people in this same situation, and the argument is now
that the black person saying this to the white person can't be racist, despite
the exact same wording and intention, because of white privilege and slavery
and anything else that black people have had to endure in this county's sordid
history.
Now, I understand the
desire to make allowances in these cases. It can be safely assumed that the
white person in this example is basing their racist comment on antiquated prejudices,
and the black person on personal experience under white racist authority.
However, if we are willing to make this argument, then we are weakening the
definition of the word even further. If we are going to give my hypothetical
black person a pass on being called racist because he has past experience to
inform this opinion, then what if I give my hypothetical white person a past history
in which fate conspired to only bring him into contact with black people who
treated him or acted around him in such a way to support, or even create, his
prejudice. Do we give the white person a pass as well on being racist because
he has historical evidence for his belief? Common sense usually dictates that
the answer is no, that you still shouldn't treat someone poorly just because
other people belonging to the same group have treated you poorly in the past.
I hope the distinctions
I am making here are apparent, because they are what is keeping this racial
discord at the forefront of the movement, and obscuring the true fight that
needs to be fought. Let me clarify some points that I am in agreement on with
the Black Lives Matter movement. This much is true: White people are not having
their children systematically killed by law enforcement officials who then
cover up their unjust murders with the help of government officials. White
people are not being disproportionately arrested or imprisoned (or sentenced to
death), are not receiving disproportionate sentences for possession of drugs
found (disproportionately) in poor black communities than rich white communities,
or find themselves being detained, harassed, or questioned by police on a daily
basis due to the color of their skin. White people don't have to live in a
country in which people are still living that remember when it was illegal for
black people to use water fountains or date white people, and was technically
legal to lynch the black person for doing so. White people have not had to
struggle with their self-identity after centuries of being forcibly removed from
their homeland and attempting to reclaim their own cultural identities after
existing for so long in a country that barely considered them human, let alone
equals.
The above is what
should be taken into account, and what needs to be addressed and understood.
Here's what we also need to admit and come to terms with in order to avoid
further conflict and confusion where it only distracts: We are all human
beings, and all human beings are capable of both rational and irrational
behavior, both in group mentality and on an individual level. We are all
capable of love and hate, of compassion and prejudice, of doing the wrong thing
for the right reason, and saying one thing when we really mean something else.
This is where the Black
Lives Matter movement is losing white people that support them, and where their
dependence on their own definition of a word is causing them more harm than
good. You can tell somebody that their group is not dealing with the same
economic/social/political situation that yours is, and they will most likely be
able to be convinced of this when the reasoning is explained to them in detail.
But tell that person that they are inherently wrong as an individual based on
the color of their skin, and in the same breath tell them that saying the same
thing about them is impossible, and you are not only insulting logic, you are
insulting the individual.
No doubt I'll be seeing
some backlash to this opinion. These days opinions are like Gods; heaven help
you if you question the validity of someone's deity. So let me clarify, for the
record, that while I might not agree with some of the tactics used by the Black
Lives Matter movement, I am in support of their overall message about erasing institutionalized
racism on a judicial and political level, and I agree that black people are
still treated unfairly by certain components of our culture and society, and
that bringing these to light is the only way to address the problem. All I'm
saying is that attacking people for their race alone, and then arguing that
they are speaking from an inferior position based solely on their race, is
detrimental to the cause. Agree or disagree with my logic, but just don't
dismiss it because I'm white.
