Politics generally consume my thinking to the exclusion of other issues. But it's not an all-consuming preoccupation. Yet, if you're a regular reader of this blog, you'd not know that, because it is a primary focus.That's because politics frame so many of the issues which face us as a nation: healthcare insurance reform, financial regulatory reform, climate change, terrorism, two wars, and putting brakes on what still threatens to be a runaway a recession.
But today, I'm going to diverge, and travel a road less traveled by, and see where I end up.
Not too long ago, I read a post on a blog I frequent occasionally. The commenter is white. The post was naked in a way that caught me off guard. I wouldn't have been anymore startled had a person walking ahead of me, stopped suddenly, turned, and belted me. It had that kind of impact.
That's enough of a buildup. I promise: Your patience will be rewarded, because I'm going to share that post with you. I don't think the person will mind. He (I think the person's male) doesn't visit my blog, at least not to my knowledge.
I copied the post, thinking that at some point I'd share it in a blog entry of my own. In preparation of that, I returned to the blog and learned that the person left other posts in response to several queries for more information, and clarification. The person leaving the posts seemed sincere, and is a regular on the blog. Here's the first of three posts:
"OK I'm sorry to change the subject but I have to bring this up, I'm sorry.
"I realized last night that I'm racist. You see, I was watching a reportage on the French channel about this (white) French-Canadian family so eagerly and lovingly adopting a little girl from Haiti (black), waiting at the airport with tears of joy with the entire white-as-rice extended family in tow. They're all so moved and so happy. I see the new daddy hugging her tightly carrying her off, such a tender scene.
"And I felt revolted, like it was gross or something. It was visceral, I couldn't help it. In fact I'd even go so far as to say it's not my fault because I was very alarmed by my honest reaction.
"Now mind you I don't see this child as undeserving or inferior in any way and I would never dream of denying her opportunity or what have you based on the color of her skin. But my God I can't believe it!!!
"Well there you have it. I'm sorry. "
Yes. There. You have it! It's quite an admission. And for the record, I didn't respond, but others did. I wasn't at a loss for words, just momentarily stunned, and not quite sure how to respond. How do you respond to one's admission of being a possible "racist." I say possible, because the reaction may have come from another place in that person's psyche that had nothing to do with racism. His next post seems to suggest that possibility:
"The more I think about it the more I think it also had to do with the poor little girl herself, she had these annoying pig tails, no expression of any kind on her face, and she looked pretty unhealthy and skinny and stuff so she wasn't cute. Today I saw pictures of more children being adopted and they were real cute so I dunno. Maybe if it had been some gangly un-cute slavic kid I'd have been revolted too but I doubt it. It just seemed forced and unnatural or something. I guess that makes me racist. What can I do? Sorry folks. At least I admit it."
Okay. He doesn't mention color. Or that the little girl reminded him of a monkey, or an ape. Only that she wasn't "cute," appeared "unhealthy," and was "skinny." Nothing out of the ordinary there. And one of the responding posts pointed that out, and suggested that perhaps he has an aversion to unattractive children, and that he wasn't actually racist. What I can say with some certainty is that the juxtaposition of black and white in an intimate setting seemed to be "forced and unnatural" for him. He practically admits that, and assumes he must be racist.
Let's move on. The third installment. The third, and final, post:
"I guess the question is not whether one is inherently racist but whether they act on it to discriminate. I think the term racist implies that the discomfort with POCs automatically means they are intolerant and discriminate. I do not discriminate.
"It's like a psychopath who has urges to murder people, well that's not his choice, he can't help it. But if he gives in and goes on a spree then he can be condemned. Same with people who are attracted to children. As long as they never act on it then it's merely a thought crime.
"So what can you do about racists and these other people? Send them to re-education camps, clamping their eyes open like in A Clockwork Orange to try to change their wiring like in A Clockwork Orange? Some would argue then that gays have the same malfunction that needs repair (not me.)
"So maybe the term racist has been overloaded, is there a term that describes someone with a visceral discomfort for something (or an unusual liking for things) but does not act upon it to discriminate or break the law? An asshole? But doesn't being an asshole require a will to be the thing that makes one an asshole?"
Okay, some good questions. The images invoked are a little disturbing (a homicidal psychopath, and child molesters), but then it's his account, using examples that resonate for him. Alright. I'm still in the game.
So to the question: Can you call yourself, or another, a racist, if you, or they, never act upon said racism? Is racism a thought, a belief, or merely an act, or both? And if it's an act only, and a person never indulges that act, can he be said to be a racist?
To fill in the blanks a bit: The person posted to a black blog, and, for the most part, wasn't helped much with his perplexity, because no one seemed able to unravel the knot of his problem, or to satisfy his knowing one way or the other--that is, whether he's a racist or not.
He implies discomfort around people of color, but wasn't squeamish about posting to a black blog, nor being found to be a racist, nor sharing the revelation of learning that he is one. Certainly, being anonymous, even with a handle, can make a difference.
Here's a working definition of racism:
rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm)
n.
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.
I can't say that this person is truly a racist or not, and will take him at his word. I'm not sure if he's all that certain. Yet, if you're truly racist, believing that your race is superior to another, then, in my book, that makes you a racist, whether you act upon that knowing or not, just as a person who believes that he's Baptist, will accept that definition of himself, whether he does anything to show that outwardly or not, and Catholics a Catholic, whether they attend church, or follow any other practices expected of those of that faith.
Help me out with this one. Give me your thoughts. And feel free to disagree.
I could be wrong, but I don't think there's such a thing as benign racism (as implied by the comments in the posts above). I agree that racism is not always overt, not always in your face. But that's only one kind of racism. The harm of overt racism is clearly seen. And the victim and the perpetrator easily identified. Here's what I think: People can believe in certain faiths, believe themselves to be a serial killer, or a child molester, or a racist, and, whether those people go beyond those beliefs and indulge their self-definition through actions, those beliefs will color their attitudes, their behavior, and their words.
If they can control the urge not to kill a person (which I doubt), a psychopathic killer will kill something: cats, dogs, or goldfish. Or the goodness, love, hope, joy, or peace of another. A child molester will molest something. Insinuate feelings for children, whether they touch them inappropriately, or not: with looks that may be disturbing, words that are suggestive, and body language that may make children and adults uncomfortable. Racist may not discriminate in ways that we'd call racist, but in other ways that show their racism. What I call passive racism, racism of avoidance: not attend a movie, a sporting event, live or do business in a certain part of town, not stop to help someone in need, avoid a sales clerk--inactions, of a sort (not openly racist), when it involves those of the wrong color.
And then there's racism that purports to do good. Frantz Fanon speaks of it in his writings, I think in one of two books, Black Skin, White Masks, or The Wretched of the Earth, where he makes the following observation: White colonials marry black women (an ostensibly harmless act), believing that their offspring will improve the black race, elevate it by virtue of the two races coming together, one race benefiting the other, because of its natural, evolutionary, superiority.
And then there's paternalism, the need to guide, correct, and govern the behaviors of others, because of the mistaken belief that they lack the civilizing means to conduct their own affairs in fruitful ways, or in accordance with proper social standards, and expectations. This tendency of some peeks through the racial clouds from time to time, in both the real and virtual world. It can be subtle, or it can be bold enough to make you wince.
In none of the racial instances above, would the people I described necessarily be called racist. The instances are too ambiguous. Yet, the racist knows. In all the examples above, whether the person's a psychopathic killer, a molester, or a racist, the person ultimately victimizes him or herself, whether, or not, he or she acts on his or her pathology.
There's always victims.
