I Don’t See You And Me Ever Coming To A Consensus
It’s easy for conversations about social issues to become abstract. Identifying and fixing concrete problems is both difficult and demands action, so some prefer to take refuge in philosophical arguments.
In my article, Who Cares If America Is A Racist Country, I tried to bring the focus back to practical issues. Because while it had become fashionable to debate if America is a fundamentally racist country (even Joe Biden and Kamala Harris weighed in), questions like these a) can’t ever be settled, and b) don’t make life better for anybody.
Eventually, the issue stops being racism at all. We just pick a side, yell at each other from behind our ideological walls, and blame the other side for the fact that nothing gets done.
Daniel, who you might remember from this conversation, couldn’t make up his mind whether he agreed or disagreed with this point.
Daniel:
An interesting article. If the intention was to provoke discussion, mission accomplished.
Frankly, whether America is a racist country or not is a distraction. A philosophical exercise for bored, privileged intellectuals.
That America is a racist country is a truism. So is the fact that racism, like a lethal pathogen has been exported worldwide. Time for discussing philosophical concepts has long gone.
The principal object of racism will most likely find this article rather frustrating. Such sentiment would be due in part to their lived experience and, the knowledge that that every “black” human born over the past five hundred years have had their lives blighted by this latent primitive instinct, opportunistically weaponised and deployed against them by arrogant, blood thirsty Western Europeans.
Yes, America is a racist country and it’s white citizens benefit from subjugating black people, they are racist, so is the world.
The nature of the racist contagion, especially the psychological hold it has on its hosts, is so strong; its corrupting influences so delusional, that the condition is incurable.
Discussing racism is like discussing a solution to impact of a global nuclear war. Openhiemer recognised that he couldn’t unsplit the atom. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
The only solution, if there is a solution, is mutually assured destruction or peaceful co-existence.
Fantasy? Imagine what will happen when the Trump’s s’hole countries are able to afford flushing loos.
“Frankly, whether America is a racist country or not is a distraction. A philosophical exercise for bored, privileged intellectuals.”
Conversations about racism will always be a battle between emotion and reason. Between focusing on what matters, and being distracted by what’s cathartic.
Daniel acknowledges the central point almost immediately, namely that the question of whether America is a racist country is a distraction. But then writes 200 increasingly abstract words about how America is a racist country.
The challenge in discussions like these isn’t getting the other person to see the truth. Most people are more than smart enough to see it by themselves. The challenge is to keep them focused on the truth when it doesn’t validate their feelings.
Steve QJ:
So is the fact that racism, like a lethal pathogen has been exported worldwide
Well, I don't think that America can take credit for racism, despite what Kendi would have us believe. Whether you call it a caste system or imperialism or something else, people have been discriminating on the basis of skin colour long before the Atlantic slave trade.
But the roots of that discrimination seem to be here in your comment too. White people are racist? How do you know this? How does benefiting from a system automatically make you responsible for its evils?
Are you sexist because you're a man who benefits from the advantages of the patriarchal society we live in? Are you subjugating women because you happen to have been born male?
I think your reference to mutually assured destruction is apt. Either we figure out a way to look past the colour of people's skin and fix the problems in society, or we tear each other apart for a difference that is literally skin deep. We can't do that unless all of us stop generalising on the basis of skin colour.
Daniel:
We can't do that unless all of us stop generalising on the basis of skin colour.
Most of the points you raised are valid and rational, but there’s the rub (as the British say). Racism is neither rational nor logical.
Racism is a vestige of human social development, an instinctive response to the unfamiliar. It’s safer to perceive a threat than fall victim of predation. Human’s unique intelligence should help to differentiate, thus choosing the best option that offers optimum benefit. Hence, human responses should be less primitive, less predictable than other primates. Racism is therefore a self indulgence that appeals to the baser instincts in humans.
Generalisations are self preservation strategy by nature. For example, it’s better for survival, to assume that all snakes are venomous. Interestingly, this generalisation is trans-generational. Fear of snakes is passed from generation to generation and is exhibited even by those who have never seen a snake. Racism is similarly passed from generation to generation by those who practice racism. It is ultimately unsafe for those who suffer systemic racial violence to risk differentiation.
You suggest that racism isn’t the invention of white people, without offering evidence to support your assertion.
The first mention of racial hierarchy that I can recall is the German Philosopher who postulated that white peoples originated from the Caucus Mountain Regions of Europe and were superior to all other races. From that erroneous proclamation stemmed all sorts of pseudosciences and inhumane practices to support the theory, including eugenics and genocide, practices America exported to Nazis Germany.
I could accept your claim if you can identify a group of humans who base their entire culture on dehumanising another group on the basis of that group’s naturally assigned physical characteristics.
“Most of the points you raised are valid and rational, but…racism is neither rational nor logical.”
Again, what I find most fascinating (and frustrating) about Daniel are these flashes of self-awareness, that almost immediately flicker away into incoherent rhetoric.
He sees the logic of the argument, but in a feat of mental gymnastics I can't quite follow, uses the fact that racism is illogical as justification to continue being racist.
Steve QJ:
I could accept your claim if you can identify a group of humans who base their entire culture on dehumanising another group on the basis of that group’s naturally assigned physical characteristics.
I mean, just off the top of my head, read about the indian caste system. It's over 3000 years old. Skin colour factored here, and in caste systems in South East Asia, because, of course, the lowest people did all the outdoor work. That's why, even today, many people in Asia equate light skin with beauty and even buy skin bleaching products.
But I didn't say anything about white people inventing racism, I said that America didn't invent racism. People have been hating each other for arbitrary reasons since time immemorial. Look at the Israelis and the Palestinians, look at Catholics and Protestants, look at the Tutsi and the Hutu. Nobody has a monopoly on this stupidity.
Note that Nazi Germany didn't spare people just because they were white, The Russians and the British and most of Europe can attest to that. They also allied with the Japanese who obviosuly aren't white. Skin colour was only a part of the picture there. They believed their type of whiteness was superior, not necesssarily whiteness in general.
If you're condoning generalisations, women could make exactly the same claims about men as you're making about white people here, and with far better justification. The vast majority of white people pose no threat to you and have zero power over you. But the vast majority of men pose a serious threat to the vast majority of women. Do you think it's right to treat you as a rapist because almost all rapists are male? Or do you think it should be remembered that almost all males are not rapists?
Daniel said he’d accept my argument if I could provide an example of a culture that dehumanised people based on physical characteristics. I provided one (I’m sure, with a little effort, I could come up with several more). So that should be the end of it, right?
Of course not, silly! Buckle your seatbelt for a hard left.
Daniel:
Skin colour factored here, and in caste systems in South East Asia, because, of course, the lowest people did all the outdoor work
Let me declare my position. I believe that the scientific name for Man is a misnomer. Wisdom is rarely exhibited by humans.
Judging from your declared perspective, you would have a problem with the accolade, “Wise Man” also.
I’m sure that those who conferred that title Homo Sapiens on humans didn’t mean that ALL humans are wise. They did assume that, humans as sentient creatures, would have the intelligence to appreciate the use of generalisations in the process of communication. I have no argument with them. However I still stand by everything I have said. Think collective rather than individual.
I am constantly surprised by the tendency of some people to conflate “racism” with “tribalism”and “social and economic pragmatism”, leading to warfare periodically.
The latter is common throughout inter-tribal rivalry in Africa, and the history and social development in peoples all over the world. Especially so on the continents, with the obvious exception of Greenland. The Cast system” in India and the numerous incidents in Africa, Europe and even the America’s. The shade of skin colour is perverse justification. How so? humans have moral agency. They’re troubled by behaviour they KNOW is immoral and down right wrong. In order to inflict injury on others and to persuade others to participate, they fabricate a “reason”.
Check out the reason for and methods used to persuade Ist World War soldiers to kill the “enemy”.
Racism is different! Racism is an arrogant, audacious, animalistic, sadistic abuse of other humans because they were assigned physical characteristics that identify them as a group and different. It’s an attempt to occupy a position of superiority that cannot be justified or maintained except by classification of the group as inferior, unworthy, less than human, and gratuitous brutality. The treatment of “black” HUMANS by “white” HUMANS fits that description.
Judging from your comments, I can only assume that your definition of racism is different. In that case we’re at cross purposes. I apologise.
Incidentally, I have always thought that the cast system in India was and is an abomination. The word “evil” seems inadequate. Especially the fact that it was institutionalised and perpetuated by a system including the recording that status on birth certificates. Words fail me. Mahatma Gandhi could have chosen a more noble cause. Colonialism has a finite shelf life. But the cast system in India is not racism! Although equally vile.
Steve QJ:
It’s an attempt to occupy a position of superiority that cannot be justified or maintained except by classification of the group as inferior, unworthy, less than human, and gratuitous brutality.
You've gotten way off track in this reply, but the above quote could be said of any claim of group superiority. You're welcome to stand by your desire to "think collective rather than individual", but a child can understand that this mindset is the root of every single form of bigotry and prejudice. I know you understand this too. Which is why it's frustrating to see you try to defend it in some cases and condemn it in others.
Racism isn't different to other forms of tribalism. It's simply based on a different arbitrary cause. I challenge you to look at any of history's examples of genocide or ethnic cleasnig and claim that they had a more "reasonable" or "valid" motive for doing what they did than skin colour would have been.
It doesn't matter if people decide they're superior because of their nationality or their sex or their religion or their skin colour or their ancestry or anything else. It's ALL arrogant. It's ALL animalistic. It's ALL grotesque.
You absolutely cannot have this both ways.
Daniel:
It doesn't matter if people decide they're superior because of their nationality or their sex or their religion or their skin colour or their ancestry or anything else.
This irrational rant is intriguing. You seem to be confused about a number of things.
A philosophical belief harms no one but the one who holds them. When you violate other people’s rights you to inflict them on others, that’s another matter.
I would defend your right to be racist but I reserve my right to defend myself against your racism.
I think you have an intellectual blind spot when it comes to moral sophistication. Killing your neighbour because of a feud is not the same thing as killing him because you don’t like the colour of his skin. Hopefully, with a bit of moral sophistication you will see the difference.
Frankly I don’t see you and me ever coming to a consensus. I bid you farewell.
Steve QJ:
Haha, you're description of my reply as irrational after your bizarre rant about homo sapiens is intriguing. But the line you're trying to draw here is even more so.
Would you describe Hitler's hatred of the Jews as a "feud"? How about the genocide of the Tutsi? Just a feud? The Bosnian genocide maybe?
You think it's okay to engage in moral relativism about these things because the thing their murderers didn't like was their religion or their culture and not the colour of their skin?
Speaking as if this is Victorian England doesn't lend any weight to your argument I'm afraid. Nor do laughable accusations about a lack of moral sophistication.
You want to believe that your particular brand of victimhood is sacrosanct. You're wrong.
Something that’s always seemed painfully obvious to me, but never quite so obvious to the racists I talk to, is that all bigotry is built on the same error of thinking. Namely, the belief that individuals can be classified according to arbitrary, immutable traits.
It doesn’t matter if the trait in question is the colour of your skin or the configuration of your genitals or the piece of land you were born on or the sex of the people you find attractive, the same mistake underpins them all. There’s no value in claiming that one of these forms of bigotry is worse than another.
Well, that’s not quite true.
For Daniel, arguing that racism is “worse” than any other form of bigotry is easier than recognising the roots of that same bigotry lurking in his thinking. It gives him an enemy to yell at, and somebody to blame when nothing gets done.
He can see all of this, but can only bear to acknowledge it for a few seconds at a time. After all, doing so is both difficult and demands action.
No wonder he prefers to take refuge in philosophical arguments.
The Japanese believed they were superior to the Koreans, and that belief conveniently justified exploitation. The situation between the British and the Irish was similar, and their exploitation and dehumanization of the Irish lasted 700 years.
People outside these areas would struggle to recognize physical characteristics identifying these groups, but people within group at least believed they could tell each other apart. The British drew caricatures of the irish as short, with their eyes close together—not dissimilar to the Nazi caricature of the Jews as having long feet and big noses.
There is nothing special about using skin color to divide people like this, and I struggle with the idea that America invented racism. Maybe you could make that case with an extremely narrow definition of racism? But even then, people around the world have factored skin color into their hatred. I am not sure I understand the goal people are trying to achieve when they make this charge. I read it in Caste as well.
Holy fudge! I don't know how you do it, unless you've been graced with the patience of a saint. I find that people who reason like Daniel seem more interested in the theory of racism instead of discussing how to solve it. They've discussed the topic so much that they now inhabit a whole new stratosphere of logic that is foreign to many of us. In an case, keep up the good work.