Posted by
Zorro on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 8:29:00 PM
I can't answer that question here. But I was having a conversation with my roommates about what it is not. This is a follow up to that conversation (by several months) that I thought worth publishing.
Ever since our conversation about racism I've been wanting to write
some magnum opus essay on the subject. The problem with magna opera is
that they can take a lot of time or become large enough in their
would-be worker's mind that they become endlessly postponed. This ist
he case with this one.
So just in case I never get to writing that one down, I'd like to extremely briefly write a couple thoughts.
The first opinion I have dominates about 65% of my issues with the
usage of racism as a word and as an accusation. This is that there is
something very unwise about letting anyone or any group be the sole
definer of what is beyond-the-pale-offensive to that person or group.
Obviously anyone can decide what will offend him, as can any group. But
deciding what will offend me is not the same as deciding what you
cannot do or say.
This is particularly true when there is significant economic incentive
to put the line of offense to the advantage of one particular group. To
be viewed as a victim of racism brings many advantages in our society.
Is should go without saying then that there is significant incentive
for any group to claim victim status. When the definition of racism is
turned over to that very group, it doesn't take a cynic to to be
concerned that the definition may tend to be too broad. It's worth
nothing, additionally, that not only does this "victim spoils" system
itself encourage both self-victimization (of those who benefit) and
resentment (from those who don't) but that indulging it by allowing a
potential-victim group to define what a victim is is gasoline on the
fire.
Actually, I think that's my core problem with the word "racism". My
other problems are derivatives. I insist that racism should have some
element of genuine malice, cruel condescension, or at the very least
should lead to significant disadvantages for its victims. To expand the
definition to include all kinds of unintentional faux pas is to dilute
the power of the word to condemn truly heinous views. Equally
dangerous: to use it to prevent all inquiry into questions of racial
differences is to disadvantage all races.