Racism Without Racists
Racism persists, pervades, and permeates every aspect of the lives of black and brown people in this country and yet there are no racists.
There’s systemic racism but there are no racists to perpetrate and perpetuate it…
There’s institutional racism but there are no racists to perpetrate and perpetuate it…
Are we to blindly believe or simply accept the notion that racism in this country ‘just growed like Topsy’ in Uncle Tom’s Cabin?:
In answer to the question, “Do you know who made you?”
Topsy’s reply is: “S’pect I jus’ grow’d”.
This retort was, itself, for a long time the basis of a common saying: “Growed like Topsy” which became a humorous way of describing how something developed without any particular intention or plan.
Although there were different conceptions of nationalism from the early 1900s through WWII, particularly and especially the role of race and racism in this context, among fascists, racism and nationalism were intricately interwoven in both thought and practice.
Trump’s political socioeconomic world view was born initially and primarily out of the racist ‘birtherism’ memes and tropes that were bandied about which questioned the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s candidacy and presidency.
Trump was able to harness and exploit the racism that nearly 50% of the white voting population harbored by stoking their resentment, fear, and anger.
His MAGA Movement gave them a racist voice and license to openly express the hate and bigotry that seethed just beneath the surface of the facade that had kept it out of public view and political discourse for decades.
Trump’s form of Fascism is as racist as any that had existed in the era between WWI and WWII…
Mussolini openly acknowledged and embraced racism as national policy in order to satisfy Hitler as they became fascist allies during the run-up to WWII…
However, today, while racism is an underlying force that has driven the evolution of ‘Trumpism’ toward full-blown fascism, particularly but not exclusively, everyone on the MAGA right is in denial re actually being a racist…
If you wish to deny that both DeSantis and Trump are racist fascists, be my guest, and good luck with that…
So, while white supremacy, white nationalism, and white Christian fundamentalism run rampant and roughshod through the MAGA Republican Party headed toward race based Fascism, there are no ‘racists’ to perpetrate and perpetuate it…
05/15/2023 @ 6:19 pm
You just demonstrated why it doesn’t serve anyone to point out that someone is a racist.
Person 1: You are a racist.
Person 2: No, I am not.
End of conversation.
Or, it could go another way.
Person 1: You are a racist.
Person 2: Yes, I am.
End of conversation.
05/15/2023 @ 7:46 pm
So, where is this hallowed so-called common or middle ground?
“Person 1: You are a racist.
Person 2: No, I am not.
End of conversation.”
Here’s a way to extend the conversation:
Do you know what racism is?
Or
Why not probe further and inquire whether the respondent agrees with the notion that racism exists as a real social phenomenon that should/must be addressed?
Again, in an effort to extend the conversation.
If there is no acknowledgement, admission, accountability, or acquiescence to fact and truth, how do we come to the oft ballyhooed mutual understanding and accommodation?
“Person 1: You are a racist.
Person 2: Yes, I am.
End of conversation.”
This is the end of the conversation if you allow it to end there.
Why not ask: Why are you a racist?
Regardless of the response, the conversation continues…
05/15/2023 @ 8:49 pm
Great question. I missed this earlier.
The middle ground is virtually infinite. Q: Do you like roads with potholes, or without?
Ans: Without.
Great, lets fix the roads so that we can have smooth rides.
Hey, remember when we fixed those roads last year?
Yeah.
Well, why don’t we work together to build housing. You have some people who need housing, right?
Yes. Yes, I do.
Great. I have a plan. Etc.
There are common needs that are real…and virtually infinite. The separations from racism are relatively small, and impractical. Working to meet mutual needs exists, and expands common ground. The US Military was once segregated. National defense was common ground. The Secretary of Defense is a Black male civilian who had once been a General. Racism was once a barrier. Common ground removed the barrier.
Health care. Education. The economy. The environment. Common ground is limitless.
05/15/2023 @ 7:54 pm
By the way: Just to be clear, I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here…
05/15/2023 @ 8:37 pm
What is the Devil’s position, for whom you are advocating? If the Devil is found to be a racist, what happens next?
05/15/2023 @ 9:21 pm
“If the Devil is found to be a racist, what happens next?”
If the devil was found to be a racist and, I don’t believe that the devil exists, that wouldn’t permit me to dismiss the notion that racism exists and that racists perpetrate and perpetuate it…
I like your road and housing metaphor but that comes from either extending the conversation and changing the subject or abruptly changing the subject with no further mention of the original posture or position re whether or not the respondent is a racist…
Fixing roads and building housing are not supposed to have anything to do with race, racists, and racism, but sadly roads don’t get fixed and housing doesn’t get built because race, racists, and racism tend to get in the way of finding a path to ‘common ground’…
05/15/2023 @ 10:10 pm
Ron, finding common ground generally has nothing to do with the main area of disagreement. Let’s take the metaphor of “ground” and apply it literally, which was its original meaning. There was ground owned by one party, and ground owned (or controlled) by another party. On the owned/controlled ground, the ruling party makes the rules. But…outside of that ground there is common ground. That common ground has what both sides need. They don’t or can’t leverage their jurisdictional power in the common area.
From that is the metaphorical “common ground.” That involves common goods or service or beliefs that each contestant values. These have common value and offer opportunities for cooperation. Cooperation on common values allows for the development of skills in bridging differences.
And now, back to the “racist” accusation. A racist has zero reason to work with the one who has accused them on resolving that particular issue. It is what is called an impasse. No progress is possible. It is a philosophical difference which is entirely legal. There is no direct civil pressure that can be leveraged against what someone feels or thinks. If they are a racist, they can deny it…or accept it, but nothing will change. It can be denied because it can’t be chemically proven, and even if it could…it is legal. It is that person’s right.
Your scenario where they accept your accusation, and your remedy would be to subordinate themselves to you, and your viewpoint or values. That. Won’t. Happen. To do so would be to subordinate themselves to your superior intellect, or superior morality. And if they were prepared to do that, they would not be the thing that has caused the offense in the first place. It’s like talking a hungry tiger into being a vegetarian. That. Won’t. Happen.
Also, of course the Devil doesn’t exist. You raised it metaphorically. Now, focus on this. You said “Devil’s advocate.” When I travelled right down the track that you laid, back in your direction, you made a rhetorical diversion by saying, “I don’t believe that the Devil exists…” Again, that is exactly why it is fruitless to accuse someone of being a racist. They can do the exact rhetorical diversion that you just used. IN FACT, that is precisely the same diversion used by some. Some will say, “racism does not exist.” It is as slippery as when you said, “the devil doesn’t exist.” You established the metaphor, and then abandoned it to avoid a direct confrontation on the same track. You must now understand why it is fruitless to accuse someone of being racist. You just did the precise diversion…and the “devil’s advocate” was your choice of metaphor.
You could assume that I did not know what “Devil’s advocate” means, and then you’re acting as the racist would by presuming superiority, and not being accountable to your own words. Or, you could abandon it, and not attempt to support it as a construction of logic. The only way it differs from a nihilistic racist fielding an accusation of racism is that it is not about race/racism. Other than that, it is identical. If you can FEEL why it was necessary to say that the Devil does not exist, then you can KNOW why a racist can deny racism.
05/15/2023 @ 9:57 pm
A devils advocate is
a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments.
Paraphrased from the Oxford Dictionary…
My purpose here is primarily, if not purely, rhetorical…
05/15/2023 @ 10:25 pm
Oh…my god.
05/15/2023 @ 10:54 pm
The complete quote is:
“I don’t believe that the devil exists, that wouldn’t permit me to dismiss the notion that racism exists and that racists perpetrate and perpetuate it…”
I didn’t want to go down the diversionary debate or rabbit hole of whether or the Devil exists…
“There is no direct civil pressure that can be leveraged against what someone feels or thinks.”
You make a strong case for this assertion. However, I believe that if we don’t or can’t make a case that can be leveraged against the way people think and feel the American experiment is doomed to failure…
05/15/2023 @ 11:15 pm
“…However, I believe that if we don’t or can’t make a case that can be leveraged against the way people think and feel the American experiment is doomed to failure…”
I disagree with this, Ron. In fact, if we CAN make a case against how someone thinks or feels, the American experiment is already over.
“Thoughtcrime is a word coined by George Orwell in his 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel it describes politically unorthodox thoughts that contradict the tenets of Ingsoc (English Socialism). In contemporary English usage, it describes beliefs that are contrary to accepted societal norms…” -Wikipedia
This is what you are talking about, Ron. Thoughtcrime isn’t a thing…nor should it be. Thoughts and feelings exist in the only place where freedom truly exists. The notion that thoughts and feelings should be regulated beyond the one having the thought or feeling is the extreme of authoritarianism to its fullest extent.
What would your case against how someone thinks or feels look like? I don’t understand how YOU don’t understand this.
05/16/2023 @ 6:32 am
Making a ‘case’ against a thought process or an ideology doesn’t mean making it a crime.
An effort to dissuade or disabuse someone of ‘wrongheadedness’ doesn’t require or result in the ‘criminalization’ of thoughts or feelings which may be deemed offensive…
Racism is a debunked ideology which is clearly offensive and wrongheaded but it is not a crime to be a racist. Nor should it be in a free and open democratic society…
However, it should be understood that should racism be or become a governing principle or norm the democratic society will not long remain remain free and open.
The society itself must stand as the ‘case’ for a free and open multicultural, multiracial democracy and the ‘case’ against repressive, oppressive, autocratic, authoritarian, or totalitarian tyranny in any form….
Trump and his MAGA Cult of racist ‘Trumpists’ are an existential threat to American democracy, as imperfect as it is.
If we can’t make a persuasive ‘case’ against Trump oriented fascism and in favor of a ‘liberal democratic republic’, I say again the American experiment is doomed to failure.
At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Franklin was asked: “What kind of government do we have?” He replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
There are far too many people in this country who are racists and don’t know it.
There are far too many people in this country who have become victims of fascist demagoguery and don’t know it.
There are far too many people in this country who won’t or can’t acknowledge me or you as human beings entitled to basic human and civil rights on equal footing. Whether they are aware of it or not, that makes them racists as far as I’m concerned…
If you can find ‘common ground’ with people who can’t or won’t acknowledge you as a human being, please be my guest, go for it, and good luck with that.
I will not tiptoe around calling out racists and their racism any longer.
You have the right, prerogative, and possibly even the luxury of doing so.
I have neither the time, interest, or inclination to continue to accommodate and placate these racist, fascist bastards with useless and ineffective euphemisms and platitudes while they arm themselves to the teeth with AR15s and are fully prepared to kill me for breathing while black.
If you spend as much time and energy deploying your prodigious rhetorical and literary skills in making a better case than you think I can, please, by all means, be my guest and have at it…You may well indeed overcome…
The life you save may be your own…
05/16/2023 @ 8:03 am
When considering the freedom of thought, and the sovereignty of one’s personal intellectual space, you are drawing a distinction without a difference. The way to change one’s thoughts or feelings must be persuasion to adhere to objective reality, and nothing else. Any other method is manipulation. That manipulation is unethical. If someone were to surrender control of their thoughts and feelings to someone else, they are surrendering their autonomy. Their responsibility to others vis a vis their private thoughts is to not allow their anti-social thoughts become anti-social actions. It is not their responsibility to not have anti-social thoughts. Thoughts and actions have a relationship, but they are not causal by necessity.
As for common ground with racists, you do it literally every day. Everyone does it. Do you vote? You’re finding common ground. Do you follow the laws of your city and state? You’re finding common ground. Do you speak English with generally understood rules? You are finding common ground. None of that means that you are endorsing racism, or any other concept that you disagree with on principle. What it means is, you are not annihilating the structure of civilization rather than work within it.
Separatists of various types are the ones who refuse to find common ground. Amish communities seek separation from because involvement with is thought to be evil. You can list off numerous types of separatist movements who refuse the concept of common ground. You are not that. A conversation within this medium precludes that. The institution of the United Nations is a mechanism for finding common ground. Choosing not to exploit a tactical or strategic advantage as soon as it presents itself is finding common ground. Vladimir Putin choosing not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine or the US is him seeking, acknowledging, and valuing common ground. If he were to abandon that view, he could ruin the world…for us and himself. There is a shared value there, no matter how odious he is personally. The common good is maintained by recognizing the common need. For the US to choose not to light Russia afire with nukes is not an acceptance of his government’s life. It is a preservation of our own. They just happen to be parallel. Common ground is not about agreement on principles. It is about cooperation despite disagreement on principles.
05/16/2023 @ 6:50 am
In case you’ve forgotten:
05/16/2023 @ 10:58 am
Ron,
I have been told by you many times over the years, here and on OS that I am in over my head attempting to be persuasive in a discussion when I disagree with some nuance of your position on a particular matter. It seems like a valid time to remember your own use of that metaphor.
05/16/2023 @ 11:03 am
If you honestly believe that drinking the same brand of coffee, or driving the same make of automobile, or viewing the same sunset etc puts you on ‘common ground’ with someone who doesn’t acknowledge your humanity, you have much too far to go, and there’s nothing further to discuss here…
05/16/2023 @ 2:01 pm
This comment further demonstrates your misunderstanding of ‘common ground’.
First of all, nothing “puts” one on common ground. Also, being “put” on common ground is not the issue. The issue is “seeking” common ground. It is the process of pragmatism, not the result, or the predicate. The theory at issue is that “seeking” common ground makes one a racist. That is the misunderstanding. Seeking common ground with a racist is not the same as seeking common ground with racism. The issue is not about the point of disagreement. It is to go around the point of disagreement for the sake of pragmatism and progress.
05/16/2023 @ 11:52 am
Art, I’ll be in over my head re matters involving race, racists, and racism when donkeys fly….
Be careful not to step in over your own head here and get your feelings hurt or your ego bruised…again…
05/16/2023 @ 12:04 pm
Ron,
I’ll make it simple.
You told Bitey this : “If you spend as much time and energy deploying your prodigious rhetorical and literary skills in making a better case than you think I can, please, by all means, be my guest and have at it…You may well indeed overcome…”
That was after he had already made a better case. I am saying I can read.
I would never seek to outdo you on matters of race and racism.
05/16/2023 @ 5:45 pm
“I would never seek to outdo you on matters of race and racism.”
Art,
No need for you to try to “make it simple”.
Your sophomoric attempt to outdo me vicariously through Bitey renders your assertion disingenuous at best.
If you wanted to “make it simple”, you could have used the hackneyed high school standby: “What he said”, and been done with it…
I don’t believe that you have a sufficient base of information and skill set in this area to determine whether Bitey can make or has made a better case…
“I am saying I can read.”
…And, I’m saying that a 6th grader can read…
05/16/2023 @ 6:19 pm
Ron, he was being gracious. Of course he has the necessary preparation to challenge your analysis. What he lacks is the racial identity to have been victimized to the degree that a member of an ethnic minority has in North America in the last century and this one. But, this is not about that. This is about basic logic of an, as yet, unsupported premise.
Be gracious in return. That is the common ground. If your preparation makes you incapable of seeing that, is it preparation at all?
05/16/2023 @ 7:35 pm
There are people here who would like for me stop or refrain from being gracious…
If you think some of the things I say out loud are bad, you really don’t want to hear any of things I keep to myself…
“Of course he has the necessary preparation to challenge your analysis.”
If you truly believe this, then let him do it…
“Be gracious in return. That is the common ground. If your preparation makes you incapable of seeing that, is it preparation at all?”
When you’ve spent a night in jail because of the color of your skin and what you believe and stand up for get back to me with another bucket of this ‘preparation’ bullshit…
If, or when, the shit hits the fan, disrespecting and insulting me won’t put you on their side of the line…
There was no better time or place than Howard University and the streets of Washington, DC during the 60s to acquire the ‘preparation’ necessary for the times then and now…
05/16/2023 @ 8:25 pm
I had an instructor who used to say, “that’s mildly interesting” when someone said something kind of off topic. So, in his honor, I’ll say, “that’s mildly interesting.”
Here’s the thing, though. Preparation for “times then and now…”, doesn’t really have anything to do with the question of whether or not finding common ground with a racist is itself cause to declare someone to be a racist. It is nothing but a bunch of puffery. If what you keep to yourself is germane to the discussion, most especially support for the notion that finding common ground is wrong, then I’d love to hear it. If it isn’t, then no. I’m not looking for additional diversions and deflections. We’ve had plenty.
The idea that a decent man like Art is incapable of addressing you on any topic offends my egalitarian spirit. The man doesn’t need me to say that he is a smart and decent man, but I did not want to miss one chance to say so when the subject was raised. No one needs to be treated like that. There. I said it. I’m done. I’d do the same for you, Ron. Call me a sap, but that is the way I want the world to be.
05/16/2023 @ 8:56 pm
You brought up the concept of ‘preparation’…
“…doesn’t really have anything to do with the question of whether or not finding common ground with a racist is itself cause to declare someone to be a racist.”
When and where did this occur within the context of this post?
“Of course he has the necessary preparation to challenge your analysis.”
This is a far cry from:
“The idea that a decent man like Art is incapable of addressing you on any topic offends my egalitarian spirit.”
Let’s try this:
Your focus seems to be “seeking common ground”.
My focus of late has been causing or creating “cognitive dissonance”.
We’re on the same team but at different positions.
If this post demonstrates anything, it demonstrates that…
05/16/2023 @ 9:44 pm
The subject is racism, Ron. Most of your posts are about racism. You blame white people for racism. Not only do you blame them, you blame every single one. Every once in a while, you swing very wide and say something like, “anyone who seeks common ground with a racist is a racist”…(you’re a racist if…). That notion is CRAZY. That is the only thing I have addressed you about since you said it. You moved on to another post saying racism sucks, but I have said…you know, calling everyone a racist won’t fix anything. You’ll only piss off those inclined to stand with you.
My mistake. I took this as connected to the other umpteen posts about racism. Silly me.
05/18/2023 @ 9:52 pm
The only way for a legislature to work is to find common ground. The biggest crime of Newt Gingrich was teaching one side to refuse to look for common ground. That decision did not serve us.
To refuse to find common ground is basically to commit to war. The United Nations, as imperfect as it is, and as a Jew and a Zionist I find it extremely imperfect, exists for the purpose of finding common ground, as did the League of Nations before it. Any kind of negotiation is dedicated to the goal of finding common ground. If Talking To The Wall wasn’t dedicated to finding common ground I wasted more than a year of my life on it.