cism

By: Bill Schoettler

February 3, 2023

We hear a lot about racism so let’s discuss it. 

Basically, it is thought of in many different ways. Racism could be the attitude one individual exhibits toward another of a different ethnic grouping. Or it can be a group expression or even the negative attitude of one race toward another. 

Let’s start with a one-on-one situation. I hold a mental evaluation of a member of a different (from mine) race that is “negative” toward this other person. 

If we stop at the moment of just holding a judgment, an opinion, even acknowledging the opinion is based solely on the race of the other person, we have to examine the issue of mentation, of thinking, of what is not [yet] expressed…merely a mental process.

How I happen to come by this judgment or opinion is irrelevant; I hold it. Now, is there any way that any other person can determine that I hold this opinion? Of course not. How I think, how any of us think is one of the few, truly private “acts” that are possible in today’s world. And, at least presently, there is no law against how any person thinks or against any opinion a person holds.

The next step, the next issue becomes the iteration, the broadcast, the physical demonstration of that privately held opinion. If I orally express my opinion to others then I am displaying my racism. Expressions of racism can be done by speaking, writing, or conduct. Denying another employment, an opportunity or recognition of the other, or any conduct which may be considered detrimental to the other solely based on the other’s race is against the law. 

Why is it against the law? Because in this country we have laws that are designed to protect people from harm, and “harm” can be defined in many ways. You can harm another with words, with conduct, or with writing. When such harm to another can be found to be against some law, particularly when the harm is prompted by and caused by the opinion or judgment the actor has against the victim, punishment may be administered.

But what we are discussing so far is the conduct of and the opinion and judgment of an individual. Now let us consider the judgments of a group of people. Here we deal with any grouping that is called upon to express a unified opinion or judgment. We’re not talking about members of a race but members of an organization such as a club, a partnership, or a segment of society. The holding of similar opinions toward others, opinions based solely on the race or ethnicity of others is, by itself innocuous. It is when the group acts [to the detriment of the other] upon such “group” opinion and the action can be labeled “discriminatory” that the conduct becomes unacceptable…and frequently against the law. 

Next, we look at the privately held opinions of a society. Here we can discuss an entire race within a geographical area such as [to describe the favorite whipping boy] all members of the white race living in the United States of America.

Again we must accept the right of the individual who holds but does not act upon discriminatory opinions. It is the action, the outward manifestation of such opinions that result in a negative fashion toward members of the “target” race that we condemn. 

The right of any individual to hold private opinions, and to make private judgments is something that cannot be challenged. We recognize that opinions and judgments can be changed and the efforts to change such judgments, so long as the proprieties of social conduct are observed, are perfectly acceptable. But the right to hold any opinion, to make any personal and internal judgment about any subject is inviolate. 

What about expressing opinions in a public way? Writing a book, a newspaper, or a magazine article…what about speaking on the radio or appearing on television and expressing opinions that, by definition are “racist”? Can this be acceptable? If so, by whom?

Historically, the enemy has always been fair game. Identifying the enemy is usually easy. During wartime, the enemy is/are those against whom you are fighting.

This brings up another idea. What constitutes “wartime” and how do we define or recognize the “enemy”? Considering that we regularly hear from newscasters and some politicians that blacks are regularly victims of racism, even when there is a black-on-black “attack”, it would seem that many blacks consider themselves involved in a wartime situation with non-blacks being the aggressor and blacks the perennial victims. Thus events like climate change are the result of racism…or at least white supremacy.

This brings up another term that would appear to be either an offshoot of racism or perhaps a synonym. I suppose if you’re a white supremacist, you’re automatically a racist.

Now let us consider the real relevancy of racism. First, of course, is the regular use of the word by black politicians and black television commentators. If they don’t like something, in fact, if they dislike anything from climate change to gas stoves to the police they use either the term racist or white supremacy as an integral part of the expression. As in “climate change is the result of white supremacy” or “the police are all racist”.  These terms are used with such frequency that they would seem to lose any serious meaning. In fact, it would seem that anything in the world a black person dislikes is either the result of or itself an example of white supremacy or racism. 

A careful examination of such statements suggests first, there is no genuine evidence of any connection between the classical definitions of either word and the objects to which they are being applied. As just mentioned, these words have become, in the lexicon of those who regularly use them, common pejoratives which misuse has made meaningless. Objects cannot have such characteristics as prejudicial thoughts or conduct and when these words are applied to universal organizations such as corporations or political groups or even entire police departments the average listener/reader automatically ignores them. 

Reality and propaganda seldom have strong similarities. Propaganda is usually the vehicle used to convince non-believers whereas reality appeals to an objective analysis that is commonly devoid of emotional content. Calling a person, a group, or a thing racist, the way it is so commonly heard today is sure to evoke a response that recognizes the term is inaccurate. In fact, when the term is applied in the contemporary way, many listeners immediately run a mental comparison between the apparent accused and their personal interpretation of the word. Such comparisons invariably fall on the side of a rejection of the term.

Misuse or overuse of these pejorative words delivers a negative reaction that infects the entire message sought to be delivered by the accuser. Credibility is thus lost and the messages sought to be delivered are ignored. 

It is perhaps unfortunate that when anything is overused it becomes so commonplace that real significance or meaning is lost. This is probably why expressions that become popular in youth culture are so frequently changed. I recently heard the word “sick” used to describe a successful and complex athletic feat. My father would have called the feat “spiffy”, I would have used the term “neat”, and my wife suggested “cool”. I won’t begin to speculate on what terms will be used tomorrow, but I would hope to hear tomorrow different terms to describe individuals who have warped senses of reality. A separation of propaganda and reality is called for to avoid what is becoming a popular descent into yesterday’s way of thinking.