Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think what you are missing is that people -- in particular, white people, but really all people -- do an awful lot to perpetuate racism even if they don't personally act out of or harbor what you would call racist views. Societal structures are not made of stucco or brick -- they are people, acting consciously. They may not realize that they are perpetuating racism, but they are.
Someone who is willing broadly to accept that societal structures, broadly, are racist but who disagrees that he or she is personally involved in that is someone who is in denial and who will be part of the problem, not part of a solution.
|
There's a semantic bridge you're attempting to cross which no one ever will.
Call someone a racist and you have accused him of something personally. Say to someone, "you are part of a racist system" and you are accusing someone of being part of something so big that he may not fully realize how and to what extent he is perpetuating that system. (And really, there is no way to ever know that answer.)
I think certain people want the license to call others "racist" because it gets the point across as brutally as possible. I understand the desire to do that. But a lot of the racist impacts of a racist society are caused by people who have no idea they are supporting racist societal structures. Saying, "you're a racist" to these people confuses them, or offends them. In either case, no constructive dialogue is had.
But if you say, "society is racist and you're part of society, so you're part of this system," people are forced to think. And if you get them thinking, rather than deflecting, you're already engaged in a constructive dialogue. If they think honestly about it, they'll realize the statement is true.
Sometimes, brevity is not the best way to convey a point. I've personally used the "racist system" explanation with diehard old, white Republicans and they'll grudgingly say, "I see that." Call one of them a racist and they'll dig in and fight. Even I will still dig in and fight if you call me racist. Why? Because it's a lazy way to say a more complex thing. And it's often employed by people who like its shock value. Even as a purveyor of hyperbole and an aficionado of provocateurs, I can't abide it. It's too obvious a bait, too transparent an attempt to create a linguistic knockout punch.
And the silly argument that to bristle at it is to prove white fragility insults my intellect. I'm happy to engage insult and hyperbole all day long. I actually enjoy it. But it had better be really well crafted, and not the sort of thing a sophomoric sort could wield as a cudgel.
Many people use the term in good faith. I think the people here do so generally. But among the pundits, and in the internet circles where this stuff is discussed, the term is defaulted to by people who think it's the debate equivalent of a .44 Magnum. They overuse it, and what's overused inevitably loses all bite.
Safire would agree with me.
