Monday, March 2, 2009

I am a racist

This statement perhaps the one most pervasive facts about my participation in American society and yet it is also one of the most subdued, stigmatized, and avoided statement I could make in American society. It represents both the construction and the detriment of our society. So naturally after class on Thursday, Jyo and I paraded around our next class declaring our racist nature and the permeation of racism throughout American culture – “I’m a racist! Are you a racist?”

You can imagine that this startled most of our classmates and professor, putting them on edge, waiting for an explanation of our bold statement. So as not to be lynched as self-proclaimed potential lynchers, we imparted the wisdom of Frantz Fanon to our class, who uncomfortably acknowledged it and quickly moved on to less stigmatic topics of conversation.

To even consider myself a racist seems to contradict my lifestyle and my mannerisms. I started school as a minority and was fully inoculated against racial bigotry and white supremacy since I learned to write my name. And yet at the same time, I do hear what Fanon is talking about. I am aware of my position in society and my privileges. I am aware of other races’ lack of position and privilege. And I’m sure that awareness affects my judgments and actions in ever so subtle ways. I know that it is not unconscious, but present and accessible in my thoughts. However, I also think that my own education and rearing has limited its influence to only an awareness of difference. Yet, is that awareness enough to call myself a racist?

Then I realize that my definition of racism has relativity to the heinous acts committed before, during, and even still after the Civil Rights Movement. Similar to Alain Locke’s realization of the evolutionary formula, in which he realized that cultures were evaluated based on the white, Western standard rather than on their own individual benefits apart from any comparison to other cultures. My understood definition of racism was based on a standard that involved atrocities committed against other races, active and conscious demeaning of other people – things like lynching, the holocaust, segregation, unfair hiring, malicious police harassment, verbal assault, etc. When I think of racists, I think about the bathroom walls where kids slander other kids because of their race. I think about Gobineau’s “law of repulsion” when kids separate into racial groupings at lunch. I think about racism when people are unwilling to be open to other races and cultures – unwilling to make friends. But what I didn’t think about was that racism could be as small as just being aware of someone else’s race.

But that’s an important thing to include because my awareness certainly helps to sustain the racial barriers and delineate the divide between the races. Sure, I easily step over the lines and will make friends with anyone, but I am aware of the lines and that helps emphasize them. I am aware of my race and of others’ races, which adds to the divide and in turn supports the actions of more extremists. I think about Martin Luther King, Jr. and his struggle to impassion the “white moderate” – those neutral people who don’t actively harm, but in their lack of action, indirectly harm the cause. And I wonder are we not all somehow in that category? In our stigmatism of racism, have we just become racial moderates, not hurting each other but indirectly helping the status quo?

I strive to integrate and to improve society, but someone could just write that off as exoticism or blind naivety. You could ascribe any sort of motivations to my thoughts and actions, and the only defense I have is only I know why I do what I do. Yet, we all know one thing about each other that permeates all of us within this society. I am a racist.

6 comments:

  1. I think this is an extrememly important aspect of racism. There are many different types of racists and we can all be included in one type. In fact, in our reality it is impossible to seperate our personal beliefs from our racist subconscious. The fact is that it is natural and unavoidable to be racist as long as the idea of race exists. To try and claim that you are not racist is racist in itself and underminds the beauty of cultural differences.

    Most people seem to try to do whatever they can to not appear racist. They watch what they say, how they act, and try to give off a vibe that they are welcoming to all. Ian makes a good point when he says that not acting to combat systematic racism is still hurting the cause. We cannot simply float through life treating all equal, while being blind to our vast privileges. This goes for all types of people. From what I can tell, most whites are openly against oppression, but are reluctant to admit that oppression still exists. This, I believe, is due to a vast portion of our population being blinded by the American ideals of fairness and equality and assuming that these ideals are in place. To claim that our nation is an unfair, oppressive place can be taken as a statement of treason. We should creat RA (Racists Anonymous) where we can all pass the first step by saying "Hi, I'm so and so, and I am a racist"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great stuff on neglected aspects of racism, and how we try to deal with it. I really liked your analogy comparing our current racial awareness to MLK, white moderates, and the status quo . Though I'm wondering what the final prescription for our awareness is...To go off your emphasis on Locke:

    If awareness of your and others race in itself is part of what basically constitutes a vertical axis of superiority and moral judgments, then should we try to flip this axis on its side, or rid get off it entirely? That is, should our end goal be to neuter and de-fang racial awareness, or to take it out back and get it to go the way of old yeller? Or are both options equal?

    Our class has had several different perspectives on this question of what to do with the concept of "race" throughout the semester. Locke and Du Bois definitely embrace the defang view where racial difference and categories are preserved, while Montagu (and possibly Appiah?) support the eliminate view. To some extent, this debate seems academic. Completely abolishing institutional racism is unlikely to happen in life times. Both schools of thought seem to come to near identical answers on the 'what do we do?' question: fight institutional racism and stop using the concept of "race" negatively. And as you pointed out Ian, in some sense, everyone today is a racist. After re-reading your post, my guess is you ultimately prefer the eliminate view?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe I would support giving up racial divisions, but I still think cultural diversity is good.

    The main reason to preserve the term race is because it has been used as a distinction between the oppressors and the oppressed. Thus in the new days of reconcilation, the oppressed race needs that distinction to unite them in uplifting themselves. However, and I shall use the black Americans for demonstration, the oppressed group has formed a culture within their circumstance that could also be used to unify them in the reconcilation process.

    Now that we are living in a world of globalization and information technology, where we can scientifically prove more similarities than differences between all humans, we need to look at ourselves as members of that global unity. We have different cultures that alter our lifestyles, but intrinsically we are all humans with the same potential and same dignity.

    I like participating in cultural history like my Scottish group. And I was going to try to show how cultural division would be less problematic than racial division, but I don't think it's possible. I think the struggles would be defined differently, but would still be the same old arguments.

    So I think that I will go with Dr. King's dream for the future that "children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I wish that we could drop it all and just live.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am confused (please don't agree with this comment) about some of this stuff. I know from our discussions that no one (I hope) really wants to be considered a racist in the context of the pre-Civil War era or even the Jim Crow years. We are now discussing it in much more subtle and sophisticated (?) ways. However, I think it is a slippery slope to say that I am a racist and that is OK. Most people will not understand the context in which that might be meant. As I stated in my earlier blog, race can be defined by the color of your skin. In that context, we belong to a race. We should leave it at that...everything we do and accomplish beyond that should be in the context of who we are...and not because we belong to any particular race. I agree that we can discuss race and racism in the context of history. History is to record the past. We cannot deny our past. We should learn from it. So, we can talk of the cultural accomplishments that may have been achieved by different races. Our past is of segregation whether you are an American Indian, an African-American, or an Anglo-Saxon. Slavery is part of our past...sadly, but true. For the present and the future I agree that we need to accomplish things as individuals and groups, but not as members of a race. If we function in the structure of race, it does nothing but support the past structure of racism which does us no good. I really like Ian's last comment: "I wish that we could drop it all and just live." We don't need to deny the past or forget it, for then we will just live to make the same mistakes, but we can't modify the framework and make it work. We have to tear down the structure and build a new house...and the house should not be painted any color...

    ReplyDelete
  5. While I recognize the importance of the self-awareness involved in coming to the conclusion that you are a racist, I'm not sure that the term has any value for you outside of that recognition. I think it's fair to say that anyone outside of a Helen Keller-esque situation will necessarily be affected by race and the races of those around them. Some allow it to affect their judgment in far greater magnitudes, but that doesn't change the fact that any given person considers race in the array of things that are considered when coming to a decision any about any one of a million things that they do in a day. My problem is not entirely that the terms has negligible meaning in a world where everyone suffers from the affliction (do we need a term to describe those of us who require sustenance to continue living), but rather that if everyone starts becoming self-aware enough to announce their racist tendencies, either the connotative value of the word changes fundamentally and those who were affected in ways that made them aggressive towards another race become coupled with the de facto racists or the perception among those who do not identify themselves as racists is that there is a growing number of hatemongers. Either way, the result of such a wave of self-realization seems to have a net negative value.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Increased self-awareness about one's own racial thinking may have a net negative value in a broadly social context, but it doesn't have to in the long run. In fact, a "wave of self-realization" (I liked how you phrased this, Steven) seems likely to lead to net positive effects as people become more cognizant of their own limitations and try to work around them or redraw the boundaries themselves. Now will some people just accept their own limitations as fact, and resist reconstructing them? Yes, but I don't see most of these sorts of people being reformed much anyway, regardless of whether or not greater self-awareness occurs. This type of person probably doesn't consider his/her own conduct racist anyway, even in the current usage of the term.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.