The Essence of Racism
For the sake of discussion, I will simply call the Social Justice Warrior, Non-Player Character, cultural Marxist, Critical Race Theorist and Intersectionalist, the Modern Liberal. The Modern Liberal has been very effective at using rhetoric to advance the liberal agenda. To a modern liberal the agenda is all there is. In other words, there is no objective truth; there is only competing structures of power. Words and there meanings are twisted, perverted and exploited to help advance this agenda. Expediency is the only thing that matters. Common words that have been distorted beyond recognition include love, hate, feminine, masculine, gender, social justice, and racism. The Modern Liberal is not interested in understanding the essence of these terms, but we should not fall into the black hole of liberalism and conclude that these are all anti-concepts. This brings to the forefront the topic of discussion: what is the essence of racism? Is there a well-defined definition? In modern culture ‘racism’ is a word devoid of content. It is nothing but a liberal bludgeoning tool used to silence political opponents. It is name calling. I will argue that any well-defined meaning of racism is superfluous, which is to say that any morally illicit act (e.g. murder, theft, perjury, adultery, etc.) can be explained without race. Race can be a motivating factor in any morally illicit act, but it does not change the nature of the act itself nor does it increase or decrease its severity. I will also assume that whatever the essence of racism is, that what is true cannot be racist. I hold this to be self-evident. This can help us eliminate certain definitions and hopefully help us arrive at a well-defined meaning.
To begin with, we can focus on some common dictionary definitions. Merrium-Webster defines racism as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”. Immediately this definition has serious problems because determining whether genetic differences in racial groups produce an inherent superiority in particular traits, such as intelligence, athleticism, and other dispositions, is an empirical question. If biologist determine that human traits and capacities differ among racial populations then by my assumption that what is true cannot be racist, this definition cannot be racist and it is a non-starter. It must also be noted that superiority in some particular trait does not equate to superiority in general. In this case, do not ask if it is racist, ask if it is true.
The Anti-Defamation League defines racism as “the marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.” There are numerous problems with this definition, but the most problematic is that it assumes that only that which oppresses non-whites and that which benefits whites is racist. In other words, only whites can be racist. Without getting into what the ADL considers ‘oppression’ (any criticism of a ‘person of color’ could be considered oppressive), for the sake of argument I will assume that to oppress any individual is wrong. This definition is thus superfluous because it does not add anything to our understanding of morality; it is wrong to oppress ‘people of color’ because it is wrong to oppress people. The dignity of persons is universal:
The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all.
The very nature of these particular acts, such as murder, theft, adultery, slander, and libel, make them intrinsically evil. It is therefore unnecessary and superfluous to mention race.
The last problem with this definition is the idea of a “socially constructed hierarchy”. What does this mean? Is there some entity called “society” that constructs things? Is society itself a “social construction”? The ADL appears to suggest that a group of white people constructed a racial hierarchy from the top down for the sole benefit of white people. This could be nothing more than projection on the part of the ADL, since intersectionalism is the academic pursuit of socially constructing a hierarchy of victim groups. The worldview of the ADL denies the existence of objectivity and truth. Everything is seen as a struggle for power among different identity groups where there are:
…no universal truths, no objective reality, just narratives that are expressed in discourses and language that reflect one group’s power over another. There is no distinction between objective truth and subjective experience, because the former is an illusion created by the latter. So instead of an argument, you merely have an identity showdown, in which the more oppressed always wins, because that subverts the hierarchy. These discourses of power, moreover, never end; there is no progress as such, no incremental inclusion of more and more identities into a pluralist, liberal unified project; there is the permanent reality of the oppressors and the oppressed. And all that we can do is constantly expose and eternally resist these power-structures on behalf of the oppressed.
According to the ADL, white people are the permanent oppressors and ‘people of color’ the permanently oppressed. The ADL definition requires a lot of unpacking because so much philosophical baggage is assumed in the definition. No one but a committed cultural Marxist will accept the baggage. For instance, without an accepted and well defined definition of social construction, it is impossible to fully understand what the ADL is attempting to convey. I can only make an educated guess, but I assume that part of what the ADL is suggesting is that there are no biological differences between racial populations (i.e every observable difference between racial populations is the cause of either explicit or implicit bias). Again, this is an empirical issue and remains an open scientific question. This leads us to another modern definition.
In the popular book, How to Be an Antiracist, Ibram X. Kendi defines racism as “any policy that creates inequitable outcomes between people of different skin colors”. This removes the moral agency of individuals. In other words persons are not racist, policies are. This definition is also consistent with the proposition that differences among racial populations are biological in nature. If it is true that whites and Asians are more intelligent than blacks and Hispanics, then we arrive at the interesting result that meritocracy is racist, since a policy that rewards merit in mentally challenging fields would disproportionately favor whites and Asians. In this particular case, racial discrimination is antiracist. This is why the Modern Liberal considers “color blindness” racist. For example, to make orchestras more diverse blind auditions have been eliminated:
American orchestras remain among the nations least racially diverse institutions, especially in regard to Black and Latino artists. In a 2014 study, only 1.8 percent of the players in top ensembles were Black; just 2.5 percent were Latino. At the time of the Philharmonics 1969 discrimination case, it had one Black player, the first it ever hired: Sanford Allen, a violinist. Today, in a city that is a quarter Black, just one out of 106 full-time players is Black: Anthony McGill, the principal clarinet. The status quo is not working. If things are to change, ensembles must be able to take proactive steps to address the appalling racial imbalance that remains in their ranks. Blind auditions are no longer tenable.
Blind auditions are the epitome of color blindness and meritocracy, but since these policies do not reward the races equally, the Modern Liberal dismisses both as racist and white supremacist. The main problem with this definition is that it denies the dignity of persons. Individuals are not viewed as persons with inherent dignity, but only as a token of whatever racial group they happen to belong to. An individual that works hard will be overlooked and discriminated against solely for the racial group he belongs to. This leads to the counter intuitive result that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, is a racist and white supremacist policy, which is exactly why Democrats in California voted to remove prohibitions on racial discrimination.
The problem with the above mentioned definitions are twofold. Either the definition carries so much philosophic baggage and question begging that only a committed cultural Marxist would accept it or the definitions venture into empirical propositions as opposed to normative propositions. In the first case, this makes licit certain actions and policies that violate the dignity of persons if the action or policy is antiracist (i.e. increases the equality of equity among the races). For example, a property exchange policy from whites to blacks would violate white persons property rights, but would be an antiracist policy. In the second case, this often leads to the denial of observable reality. Empirical propositions should be addressed with empirical science. Does this mean that racism as a concept is useless? Not necessarily. I would simply define racism as “unjust discrimination based on a persons race” where justice is understood as proportional equality. A proportional equality does not treat all persons identically, but rather in proportion to their due. In this sense, we treat “like cases as like”. In short, justice is getting what you deserve. This definition is superfluous since unjust discrimination is sufficient. In other words, anything that is racist is also unjust discrimination simpliciter. Racism is thus a subset of unjust discrimination.