A black municipal judge in Dallas is taking heat for a line from a newspaper column he wrote earlier this month: “Black folks have been cleaning up white folks’ messes for hundreds of years, so why should we expect any different now?”
Forget, for a minute, whether the statement is simply true or baldly bigoted. Demands that the judge step down bring up an interesting question: Can minorities be racist?
Some say no. Here’s how the argument goes: Power is a necessary ingredient in all racism; you can’t be racist if you are not in the majority and don’t hold societal power. That would mean blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other minority groups can be prejudiced, bigoted, ignorant, rude or small-minded– but they cannot be racist.
My initial reaction to that is: Poppycock. Let’s say there’s just one black person in my town (not far from the truth), and that he believes blacks are inherently, genetically superior to whites. Sounds sort of like racism, doesn’t it?
But I wonder if making a distinction between kinds of prejudice may actually be helpful. Prejudice backed by power is clearly cut from different cloth than flaccid bigotry. Ask a Holocaust survivor.
I don’t like jokes about crackers, gringos or peckerwoods, but I can’t pretend they leave me feeling particularly threatened or persecuted — or, frankly that they even much affect my day.
So… if this blog is meant to be a discussion about racism, maybe we ought to start by agreeing on what it is or is not.
What do you think – can minorities be racist?
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan’s got a fascinating post on populist anger at Wall St. Bankers that interestingly circles around to this very topic. His point:
Hatred of those with more perceived power than you is still hatred. It is different than the contempt of the strong for those they they view as weak. In its structure, anti-Semitism is constructed differently than racism in the human psyche. But hatred out of envy is no less wounding or dangerous than hatred out of contempt – as we’ve seen with the horrifying consequences of anti-Semitism in recent history. And when it is wielded by mobs and ginned up by elites, it can be very dangerous.
Again: What do you think?
Wednesday, April 8th 2009 at 2:19 am |
Dear Berkeley:
If what you’re saying is true—and I’m not sure it is, or isn’t—still, I’m most interested in the “‘White’ people may have been the most successful at it” part.
HA
Wednesday, April 8th 2009 at 2:13 am |
Dear Jim:
You said:
“When I hear ‘white supremacy’ I picture a bunch of illiterate, embittered skinheads living in the back woods of Northern Idaho. I think of the Klan, the Boeremag and the Nazis – groups that actively advocate for intentional, open and institutional white supremacy.
“I *think* you’re offering a broader definition that would also include those who passively practice or benefit from systemic white supremacy, even if in a more covert and subtle form.”
Then you asked:
“Is that right?”
In response:
I believe the following so-called “broader definition” to be true:
White Supremacy =
(1) The direct or indirect subjugation of all “non-white” people by white people, for the basic purpose of “pleasing” and/or serving any or all “white” persons, at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity, including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex, and War.
(2) The only functional Racism, in existence, among the people of the known universe, that is based on “color” and/or “anti-color” in the physical make-up or physical appearance of persons.
(3) Racism “for the sake of” Racism.
I think many white people hear the term “white supremacy,” and respond as you have, with similar mental pictures.
However, I think saying *white supremacy* is akin to the word “car,” or “automobile.”
Some cars are “econoboxes.” Some cars are “dragsters.” Some cars are “monster trucks.”
So, imagine if a person had been told that the definition of “car,” the meaning of the word, was any one of the above, only. One could imagine a situation where, upon seeing a representative vehicle from one of the other two classes, that person refuses to believe they are looking at a “car.” (One can see a very diffused form of this, often, when people see the “limousine” version of a common car for the first time; e.g., a Hummer, or a Yugo.)
However, if one studies enough cars, one can see that, diverse as they are, they share common characteristics that, even worldwide, enable people who’ve never seen particular models to recognize them as cars.
Whether it be in the Klansman, homeless person, soccer mom, white collar worker, or Christian missionary “style,” white supremacy, in my opinion, works somewhat the same way.
HA
Monday, March 30th 2009 at 2:20 pm |
Harry, thanks for these ideas. They’re helpful to me, especially the *ecosystem* framework. Made me think of Kipling’s imperial cosmology.
There’s a lot to unpack here, which I trust we’ll have the chance to do as this conversation continues. For now, I’d like to better understand this use of “white supremacy,” as it’s a challenge to a more traditional understanding of that term.
When I hear “white supremacy” I picture a bunch of illiterate, embittered skinheads living in the back woods of Northern Idaho. I think of the Klan, the Boeremag and the Nazis – groups that actively advocate for intentional, open and institutional white supremacy.
I *think* you’re offering a broader definition that would also include those who passively practice or benefit from systemic white supremacy, even if in a more covert and subtle form. Is that right?
(Note: I’m not arguing against this broader definition, just wanting to make sure I understand it; all of this is new to me.)
Saturday, March 28th 2009 at 8:34 am |
It is not quit so, pardon me, black and white. As with all aspects of the human condition, this exists on a continuum. If you are black skinned and live in many parts of Latin America the people keeping you down are quite brown by the palette standards of El Norte. “White” people may have been the most successful at it, but whatever is the drive that compels us (humans) to need to feel superior is colorblind.
Friday, March 27th 2009 at 2:36 pm |
Though not the one I use, “prejudice plus power,” to me, can be a good rule-of-thumb definition that helps people understand the difference between a) one black person in a town who believes Black people are inherently, genetically superior to white people, and b) one white person in a town who believes white people are inherently, genetically superior to Black people.
That is, what the white person has that the Black person doesn’t, for lack of a better word, is *infrastructure*. He has an entire known universe, outside of his town, that can back up his belief in many ways, and that, at least over the last half-millennium, has often rushed to do so, typically with astounding violence of all kinds; i.e., physical, psychological, spiritual, philosophical, etc. (As I’ve often said, “Black guys mug old ladies. White guys mug ecosystems.”)
Furthermore, because racists are, primarily, deceitful, the white man probably has knows of white people in the town who agree with him, even if they openly say they do not.
*The reverse is not true*.
Note: Those five words, I’ve found, are typically highly functional in any discussion of race.
But, as I said, I don’t define racism that way. *My* short, rule-of-thumb definition of racism is *white supremacy*.
Here’s the definition of *racism* that I use and which I believe to be true:
Racism =
(1) The scientific practice of unjust subjugation, misuse, and/or abuse of persons classified as “non-white,” by persons classified as “white,” on the basis of color or non-color, and/or, on the basis of factors “associated with” color or non-color.
(2) White Supremacy.
So, for example, it’s incorrect to use the term “White Racism.” To use this term is to imply that Racism exists in a form other than White Supremacy.
HA
Friday, March 27th 2009 at 11:22 am |
Harry: I think that’s *exactly* the question, and it’s why I wrote the post. A shared definition of racism seems, to me, important for a blog that claims to be about it.
I included one definition in the original post that suggests racism can only be expressed or held by the oppressor toward the oppressed. Is this how you would define it?
As I admitted, I was dismissive the first time I heard it, but I am starting to find the definition helpful in that it makes a distinction between bigotry with and without power. I agree that they are different beasts.
But: They *are* both beasts. Hatred destroys the individuals who hold it long before it destroys their societies.
Friday, March 27th 2009 at 4:19 am |
Before one answer the question, one must define terms.
What does it mean to be *racist*?
HA