Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So now you are that much closer to understanding. You asked how the broad definition of racism could be useful. Here's the answer. We live in a racist society. Pretty much everyone in that society, without regard to individual views and attitudes, is involved in some way in perpetuating that racism. The broad definition of "racist" captures this, at the cost of blurring distinctions between individual attitudes that you find really important. In particular, you think it's really important to distinguish between people who are consciously and intentionally bigoted, and everyone else.
I don't disagree that your distinction has some value, but I don't think it has as much value as you do. (Partly because the word "bigot" has the meaning you want for "racist.") And you don't seem to have any other word to use to capture that sense in which everyone is complicit.
I will say this: If everyone is a "racist" then calling someone a "racist" becomes tautological, not particularly descriptive. That supports an intuition that the narrower sense of the word is more useful. On the other hand, using "racist" to describe actions or things or institutions that fit the broader sense is quite valuable, because that stuff is all around us and there really isn't another good way to say that. So that is very descriptive. Of course, if one isn't really concerned at all with that sort of thing, one doesn't need a word for it. Eskimos had lots of words for snow, but none for structured derivatives, or so I've heard.
|
I don’t disagree the broad definition seems necessary. But I do not think it is the proper expression of what you’re describing. Systemic racism is a different animal than individual racism. You and I and everyone else in this country live within a racist system. That system is filled with structures which are designed to and in fact perpetuate racism. The same cannot be said of every person or just about every person living within that system. Each person must be assessed individually.
We can say, for example, the US justice system is a racist system. But we cannot extrapolate from there that all justice systems are racist. And that is comparing apples to apples. To extrapolate from the fact that the US justice system is racist, or even that numerous US institutions are racist, and therefore all or nearly all US citizens are racist is comparing apples and grains of sand. The system is not the individual any more than the individual is the system. (This is one of the axioms that has kept us from war with Iran, a country of diverse people with diverse views run by an indefensible system.)
I don’t think any fair person can or should label all or most of the citizens of a nation with a description that fits its institutions generally. And I also do not think it needs to be done. It’s quite enough, and effective, to state that a society is run by racist systems decent men would seek to fix. Shaming individuals as racists using a definition that only fits systems will not cure the apathy this device seeks to eradicate.
