Posted on 01/12/2002 10:05:34 AM PST by IronJack
"Black people cannot be racist."
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.
Years later, all hell still awaits repair.
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.
Well, golly, where to begin?
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.
I bet every one of my correspondents does too.
The fallacy here is in the minor premise: the only difference is the color of their skin. Other factors enter in: the culture of failure that has been foisted on blacks, originally by whites but perpetuated by the very black "leaders" who purport to guide their race from the desert to the Promised Land; a collective resentment that remains unresolved generation after generation, and whose smoldering coals are an inferno to be exploited by hustlers and false prophets; those two factors combine to create a minimal culture that sets itself in perpetual opposition to white culture, and determines at the outset that its victory lies in white culture's defeat, and that any victory of white culture comes at its expense.
Anyone who claims that their opinion is "unassailable" logic knows not the meaning of either word.
Mr Pitts uses the generalizations Caucasian and Black and then limits his discussion to America. I would like to expand to other areas where those races are found. How about South Africa, oh heck the whole continent of Africa. Many nations there are examples of racism by whoever is in power at the moment, white or black. This means that racism is a trait of all humans, it is there always in Blacks as much as any other race. According to Mr. Pitts Blacks can't be racist because they are black and have no power. In the African nations model we see that Blacks with no appreciable power commit the racially motivated crimes of theft, looting, rape, murder and possibly even genocide.
If Mr Pitts is so pleased to be white (I assume he is), I suggest he go to South Africa and be white in public, then tell us how it is, if he can.
Wonder if Black Entertainment TV (there isn't any white entertainment TV!) would employ him if he were white?
OH GOOD. Relieved to hear that the data are coming from entities who've proven their objectivity on this issue time and time again.
MM
The point is, the heritage of black social "invisibility" is a myth. But myths are powerful shapers of destiny, and as long as blacks believe they are victims, they will act like victims. And the cycle will never be broken.
MM
You'd come out ahead by issuing your statement where you can name those who alledgely hate you or any other white person.
South Africa.
Does this definition mean that, say, Bill Cosby or Oprah Winfrey, who have considerable economic power, can be racist but that a poor Appalachian white person can't?
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.