Black bigotry, white racism differ

It's been maybe 20 years since the first time I heard some member of the black intelligentsia say that on an afternoon talk show. Naturally, all hell broke loose.

I base that assessment on the response to something I did in a recent column. Namely, I defined racism as "this practice of demeaning and denying based on the darkness of skin."

Man, what'd I want to go and say that for? The flood of letters has been unrelenting, dozens of aggrieved Caucasians wanting your poor, benighted correspondent to know that racism, thank you very much, is also felt by those whose skin is not dark at all. Several folks figured I must be one o' them black folk who considers black folk incapable of racism. One individual went so far as to contend that your truly, like most blacks, hasn't a clue what racism really is.

First, my take on the "blacks can't be racist" argument: Unassailable logic, unfortunate rhetoric.

People who make that argument reason as follows: Yes, blacks can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not "racist," because racism involves systematic oppression -- the wielding of power. As blacks neither wield power nor control the system, the reasoning goes, it's beyond their ability to be racist.

I get impatient with people who make the argument in those terms, terms that seem, frankly, calibrated to produce more confrontation than insight. Most people who hear the point framed in that way are, understandably, unable to get past those first inflammatory words: "Blacks can't be racist."

So let's frame it another way. Let's allow that black folks can, indeed, be racist. Or prejudiced, intolerant, biased, bigoted, or any other word that floats your boat. Blacks people are, after all, members of the human race and, as such, are heir to all the idiocy by which human beings are beset.

But with that established, let's also say this: It's an affront to common sense to suggest there is equivalence between black-on-white bigotry and its opposite. This is the point the black intelligentsia's rhetoric has obscured and people like my correspondents have denied, avoided, and ignored. As an aggregate, bigoted blacks have much less power to injure whites than vice versa. They also have less history of doing so. These are incontrovertible facts that render hollow the yowling demands that the racism of blacks be accorded a place in the national consciousness commensurate with that of white people.

Hey, when you find a black bigot, feel free to censure and ostracize him or her as the circumstance warrants. I don't care. Just don't pretend the transgression is what it is not. Don't claim it represents a significant threat to the quality of life of white Americans at large.

Because if it represents such a threat, then where are the statistics demonstrating how black bias against whites translates to the mass denial of housing, bank loans, education, employment opportunities, voting rights, medical care, or justice? And, please, spare me the anecdote about Jane, who couldn't get into school, or Joe, who lost his job, because of affirmative action.

Not the same. Not even close. There are, inf fact, reams of statistics documenting that racism has fostered generation after generation of Joes and Janes -- not to mention Jamillas, Rasheeds, and Keshias -- in the African-American community. And those numbers come not from the NAACP, the Nation of Islam, the Congressional Black Caucus or any other group with an ax to grind but, rather, from the federal government and from university think tanks. Yet even with those bona fides, some people find evidence of white racism's power dishearteningly easy to ignore.

They have to, I suppose. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to continue pretending an equivalency that does not exist. And somewhere inside, even THEY must recognize that fact.

Put it like this: If given the option of going through life as a white man suffering the effects of black racism or the reverse, I know which one I'd choose.

First of all, it occurs to me that Mr. Pitts hasn't heard from enough FReepers regarding this transparent apology for reverse discrimination. If he thinks he was inundated before, we need to waken a tidal wave.

Secondly, his stale complaints about "institutionalized racism" carry little weight when those statistics he cites so readily (and vaguely) are scrutinized. Let's look for example at the statistics regarding violent crime. Black-on-white crime occurs several times as frequently as white-on-black crime, a distortion even more skewed when the relative proportions of the races are taken into account. Receipt of welfare and social entitlement programs favor blacks far out of proportion to their representation in the population. Single parenthood, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, drug abuse, domestic violence -- all swell in the "African-American community" beyond what the relative numbers would dictate.

It is illegal for anyone to deny a black person housing, employment, the vote, medical care, or justice based on their race. It has been for decades. The think tanks and governmental studies that find an endless procession of institutionalized racism may very well be justifying their own existence as much as uncovering any empirical reality.

To the claim that "As an aggregate, bigoted blacks have much less power to injure whites than vice versa," I would ask how well Nicole Simpson is faring these days. How about Lt. Daniel Faulkner, murdered 20 years ago by a maggot who's become a darling of the bored glitterati? How about the countless victims of the Rodney King riots and Al Sharpton's runaway rampages? Seen a lot of suburbanites running through East St. Louis trashing the Projects? How's that for "power to injure?"

Finally, bigotry, regardless of its victim, is still bigotry. Discard the "anecdotes" about Joe and Jane if you will, Mr. Pitts. But sharing the misery only results in more misery, not a solution. And the "significant threat to the quality of life of white America" is that, in some misguided attempt to redeem the sins of the fathers, the sons willingly enslave themselves to the same oppression that robbed another race of its dignity for so many years.

Namely, I defined racism as "this practice of demeaning and denying based on the darkness of skin."

Up until and even after this statement, I thought I was going to agree with the author. The phrase "darkness of skin", after all, allows for all possibilities. A black person discriminating against a white person is denying based on the darkness of that person's skin. (It just so happens that a white person's skin is not very dark, but that's irrelevant.) Thus, this is a perfectly reasonable definition of racism.

Unassailable logic, unfortunate rhetoric. [...] People who make that argument reason as follows: Yes, blacks can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not "racist," because racism involves systematic oppression -- the wielding of power.

Then it's not unassailable logic. You see Mr. Pitts, the term "racist" does not have to involve "systematic oppression". You can look up the word in a dictionary and not see such things mentioned. And if the logic was "unassailable" one would think that it would use English words according to their plain meaning. But as it stands we now see that the phrase "blacks can't be racist" relies essentially on a very odd definition of the word "racist". This definition is designed to exclude blacks, of course. In other words, it's true that blacks can't be "racist" if you define the term "racist" cleverly enough. But what has been accomplish? (Oh right - propaganda.)

This is a startling admission, one which is rare to hear from a black racism apologist. I'm almost content to accept this victory and call it a day.

It's an affront to common sense to suggest there is equivalence between black-on-white bigotry and its opposite.

This is a very problematic statement, that depends heavily on how he is using the word "equivalence". What sort of equivalence? He doesn't say. But I can tell he's now starting to a construct a very loaded argument.

As an aggregate, bigoted blacks have much less power to injure whites than vice versa.

What is an "aggregate"? How is this "power" measured? How depressing. I thought maybe he had a fresh perspective, but this is the tired old argument, "blacks can't be racist because they have no 'power'". But who says that blacks "have no power"? Are there black CEOs? Yes. Are there black wealthy people? Yes. Are there black politicians? Yes.

So now Mr. Pitts is backed into arguing, "well yes, all those things are true, but the sum of that 'power' is still less than for white folk." Well, that is a very interesting statement which requires documentary evidence, definitions, calculations. As it stands all we have is the stereotype, "blacks have no power". The ironic thing is you hear this stereotype mostly from black people. The phrase "self-hating" comes to mind.

Finally my main complaint is one that I usually have when I hear leftist rhetoric: there are no individuals to be found in this discussion. Instead we hear about something called an "aggregate". But discrimination and the like happen at the level of individuals. It matters not to a white individual passed over for a job, or for a college slot, if the situation is different "on average" or "aggregated". It just doesn't matter. Individuals matter, aggregates don't. (Except to Marxists.)

Hey, when you find a black bigot, feel free to censure and ostracize him or her as the circumstance warrants. [...] Don't claim it represents a significant threat to the quality of life of white Americans at large.

What are "white Americans at large"? More "aggregates", more groupings. If black bigotry hurts a white individual (there's that word again), it hurts a white individual. Who cares whether it hurts "white Americans at large", whatever that means? If a black man murders a white man, even that doesn't hurt "white Americans at large", I suppose. Does that make it okay?

And, please, spare me the anecdote about Jane, who couldn't get into school, or Joe, who lost his job, because of affirmative action.

He doesn't like anecdotes because they are about individuals. But when someone like me makes a comment about the immorality of discrimination, because it hurts someone like (say) Jane, then I am talking about individuals. All he is saying here is that he doesn't care about individuals, only "aggregates" and average effects. Which we already knew. But it does nothing to rebut my basic complaint: that discrimination against Jane is wrong morally, and hurts Jane unfairly. No amount of discussion of "aggregates" or "white Americans at large" can change this. He's not even responding to the basic complaint.

There are, inf fact, reams of statistics documenting that racism has fostered generation after generation of Joes and Janes -- not to mention Jamillas, Rasheeds, and Keshias -- in the African-American community.

No doubt. That, too, is wrong. And?

Put it like this: If given the option of going through life as a white man suffering the effects of black racism or the reverse, I know which one I'd choose.

He'd change the color of his skin, given the chance. Fascinating! His self-loathing is just too depressing to read. No surprise, though, because this sort of identity politics encouraging nothing but fatalistic self-loathing among the "oppressed" groups it pretends to help.

I agree, much of this must be laid at the feet of politicans and the news media. However a 75% out of wedlock birthrate, crime statistics, and low academic scores they can blame themselves for.

There will always be failures and whiners that just can't cut it, that expect every other person in Amercia to provide them with, not only support but, fodder for hatred of their own self inflicted misery that they will not take responsibility for, and we have to learn to ignore them instead of promote them.

There are a great number of people of African American descent that are middle class, upper class, have good jobs, live the American dream, but in every race there is the no class, and they get far too much press as far as I am concerned.

Despite what they have been told, or what daydream they are living in, being born in America does not guarantee one's life long support with no effort exerted on their part. It is not the job or the responsibility of the rest of society to make each individuals dreams come true. It is our responsibility to make sure we are not in the way of the individuals ability to make his own dreams come true and society is not standing in anyones way. People like this are losers that need to get over themselves.

First, my take on the "blacks can't be racist" argument: Unassailable logic, unfortunate rhetoric. People who make that argument reason as follows: Yes, blacks can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not "racist," because racism involves systematic oppression -- the wielding of power. As blacks neither wield power nor control the system, the reasoning goes, it's beyond their ability to be racist.

Mr. Steele finds this logic unassailable? Then let him stand aside, while I do it for him.

Let's start by accepting the terms (in defiance of the dictionary and history of the word "racism"). We'll allow that racism truly does involve wielding of power rather than just bigotry based on race.

Power cannot be wielded by someone who doesn't posess it. A white person, by virtue of being white, posesses no power at all. A penniless white person with no connections cannot reasonably be said to posess more power than a successful black businessman. Therefore, by the "power" definition alone, he could not be racist.

But there is another element of the argument used to make such a powerless white person guilty by association - changing the meaning of racism from individual to collective behavior. This is done by invoking control of "the system."

"The system," the argument notes, is not run by black people. Fair enough. I'd agree.

This also seems to imply that it is run by white people. I suppose one could make this case: the President of the U. S., CEO's of major companies, that sort of thing. This demonstrates that some white people control "the system".

But what has not been demonstrated is that white people as a collective group control anything at all. So if the power to be racist must come from control of "the system," one must be able to demonstrate that any person accused of racism is part of "the system." Otherwise, they simply look like someone with power. They're not the genuine article. Yet this distinction is ignored.

The principle this argument must rest upon is an illogical premise: that an attribute posessed by any member of a group, can be presumed to be posessed by all members of that group. It literally presumes that the white skin of someone like the President of the United States makes the poorest, most powerless white person more "powerful" than Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfrey, or Jesse Jackson. Since this is demonstrably false, it is absurd to pretend otherwise. Yet without this premise, the argument collapses into a relativist mess - there could be no such thing as racism by any race anymore.

So basically what we have here is a case of redefining the word racism into a collective, rather than individual trait, so it doesn't apply to black people. Then selectively applying an attribute (control of "the system") posessed by a tiny minority within the "white" group to the group as a whole, because otherwise the term wouldn't apply to white people either.

If Mr. Steele finds that unassailable, I'll have to either assume he's a bit dim, or that he's not trying very hard.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.