afanti-tour.com Discussion Forum

Take a Survey
Sign Guestbook
Join Club for Free!

Email This Page to Someone!

Show a Printable Version

afanti-tour.com Discussion Forum > South African Politics
Racism made easy

< Last Thread Next Thread >

Author

Thread This thread is 3 pages long: 1 2 3

cjm
Senior Member

Registered: Feb 2001
Posts: 136

What is racism?

Although the term is often bandied about, definitions are far and few between.

As usual the dictionary is an easy place to start. Mine is probably outdated as it equates racialism with racism and then proceeds to define racialism as "...race hatred, rivalry, or feeling: belief in inherent superiority of some races over others, usu. with implication of right to rule: discriminative treatment based on such belief... " Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (1977).

Although this explicitly covers white racism (a feeling of superiority), the reverse (a feeling of inferiority by blacks) is not elaborated on. This is manifested in allegations that all whites are racist, rich, educated, oppressive, cruel, morally stunted, weaklings, two-faced Christians, have never done an honest day's work and live of the sweat of the black man (the list is probably not complete).

The interesting point is that although there is perhaps an air of moral superiority about the black viewpoint, in general there is an implicit admission of the powerful position whites occupy in the world (ie blacks do not regard themselves as a superior race but rather as the much maligned underdog). Hence the black view that black bigotry/prejudice does not amount to racism as historically interpreted. This does not seem quite justified as the rich/powerful Jews in Nazi Germany were probably viewed in the same light by the German population and that is commonly accepted as racism.

A recent development in black awareness in SA seems to classify Indians with whites (or even as a lower subspecies). Again this is stereotyping a powerful group rather than the "other" racism which whites entertain.

In general one could say regardless of which type of racism is involved (whether that of the underdog or the powerful), it amounts to the same thing in effect namely to demonise the other group (we are "good" and they are "bad").

Origin of racism

A few brief comments about the origin of racism. In a textbook on Sociology by one David Popenoe (Prentice-Hall, 1980), the following pearls can be found (p323):

"Prejudice against ethnic or racial minorities is always learned. No one is born with prejudice. People learn it from their parents, at school or church, from...friends, ...books..., or from SOME SOCIAL EXPERIENCE... [emphasis added]... White children growing up in SA, for instance, learn prejudice against blacks from nearly all their social experience. It is part of their culture."

In the same book at p330 the following (which is not quite in point but which I could not resist sharing) appears:

"The most radical form of segregation is apartheid, the term used for the system in SA...SA whites have been under tremendous internal and international pressure to change this system. So far, the only result has been harsher measures, including the death in detention of some black leaders. Whether any substantial change will come and whether it will be peaceful if it does come, cannot at this time be know."

Are we not lucky that this utopia has arrived peacefully and that we are safe in the arms of our black brothers?

In my view racism has very natural human roots as it closely mimics the way we reason. Consider the tribe member in a deserted part of the world seeing a red painted person one morning on the top of a hillock, with a blue feather tied to his head. Imagine further that by nightfall all except a few lucky escapees have been massacred by a horde of similarly "dressed" people. Next time a survivor sees such person he will run for dear life without first enquiring whether such person has evil intentions and can anyone fault the reasoning? In much a similar fashion we acquire mental images of groups and extrapolate those images to individuals.

What is wrong with racism?

Why is it considered objectionable? Why is racism bad? It would appear that a major reason simply is that it hurts people's feelings. Of course when it results in action in accordance with the racist's views it can have dire economic consequences for the individual. One thinks here of substandard education provided for "stupid" races, unequal employment opportunities, public amenities being reserved for certain "deserving " groups etc.

However one should in this regard not just assume that apartheid was permeated by racist views. The fact of the matter is that the philosophy which was evolved proceeded on the basis that the different races are at different levels of development and that they should be allowed to developed at their own pace in their own separate states. This, it was assumed, (apart from the fact that it was believed that this would diffuse racial tension) would allow the different races to proceed with their own nation building exercises. It was considered inconceivable that a race would not want to have its own identity, nation and country. The latter views of course largely derived from the Afrikaner's own quest for freedom and self- determination, frustrated first by the Dutch and then the British (we eventually lost every damn war we fought for independence).

The mere fact that racism hurts feelings can have major repercussions in a primitive society - it can incite groups to go on the rampage - consider for example the recent attacks on stations and trains as a result of inadequate services, the damage sparked by the fact that a university authority refuses to give R300 000 for a party for first years. What would a mob like that do with a racist or an alleged racist...

This raises another concideration namely that the views of person against who the racism is directed, whether or not the situation amounts to racism, are irrelevant in deciding whether or not racism is involved. This can be considered axiomatic as surely my misguided views about a situation do not alter the nature of that situation.

However, surely at the very least one should be able to comment on and point out the factual. I should be free to point out that Jews have hook noses, Americans are fat, Irish are thick, Indians are crooks, Afrikaners are backwards etc - at the very least this should be permissible if it can be shown to be true. If the existence of such features at first blush amounts to racism surely the fact that it can be shown to be true, negates the allegation of racism.

Proving racists statements true

How does one then prove to be true a statement which might be considered racist.

It would be foolhardy to insist that a statement of the above type be true in all cases. Surely, if it is acceptable to say that generally Americans speak a perverted form of English (some first generation Americans might not speak English at all), it is in order to generalise to some extent about groups of people. Populations are divided into races and even sub-races and no one seems to have a problem with that. In fact in regard to the classification into sub-races it has been stated that:

"...[t]here is some basis in physical features for sub-racial distinctions, but the overlap is too great to allow the individual to be placed with certainty. We can distinguish a hundred Scandinavians from a hundred Spaniards by observing the percentage of blonds but not with any degree of certainty, one Scandinavian from one Spaniard. Even when we have refined our genetic techniques we will probably never be able to place geographically groups smaller than ten. Sub-racial characteristics are accordingly characteristics of the community not of the individual. Once we realise that we are considering the classification of human communities we have no reason to be limited to purely physical measurements but can take social behaviour as our index..." (The Penguin Atlas of Ancient History by Colin McEvedy (1974)).

So, the contention is that there are statements about groups which may be true of the groups as a whole, although they do not necessarily apply to each and every individual.

In this regard the issue of probability and statisics arises. Surely, in a SA context it cannot be denied that most crimes are commited by blacks (or that large numbers of them have AIDS). This can be apologised for in a number of ways but for a white person the fact of the matter is to keep out of their way as much as possible.

The same with intelligence (the holy cow of the apologists). The facts (the Bell Curve controversy) show that blacks as a group have a lower intelligence than whites. This can also be explained in a number of ways but until it is shown that all these opposing theories are in fact true why on earth should I disbelieve the initial theory. I am at pains to emphasise that in all these cases it is accepted as a likelihood that a number of individuals would not conform to the the norm. In fact, I would insist that society be structured in such a way that ALL competent individuals be given access to education facilities. However it is not acceptable that it should just be assumed that all people have the same capabilities. If a group of people can have hook noses, another group of people might have another funny characteristic and why should I not be allowed to point that out? As a matter of fact, it could be quite important that some of these differences are pointed out and investigated (Afrikaners for example suffer from a genetic problem (like the Jews) which tend to produce very high cholestrol levels))

Should an odious statement which is true of the group, be applied without further examination to an individual of that group, one may well be faced with racism. One cannot just assume that because a group has, for example, criminal tendencies, that that means that person x is a criminal. What is true, is that the probabilities are that person x may be tainted. Considered in this light, one would again be on safe ground keeping one's distance from that particular person and even warning one's loved ones to keep clear (whether there would be an obligation to examine the personal circumstances of the person concerned, and declare him safe, would depend on the facts of each case) .

Theories are of course to a large extent (initially at least) unproven conjectures. They may or may not be shown to be true eventually. So, do we suppress them if they cannot be shown to be true (as the church did with Copernicus) right away and might on that account amount to racism? Of course not, but then they have to be pursuits in good faith in search of the truth. Mr x, who gets a bee in his bonnet about the competence of blacks to drive motor vehicles because his black neigbour's teenage son dinged his father's car, cannot claim the protection Copernicus should have had.

One should also distinguish the situation where I am obstinate about recognising the truth and persist in my heresy despite the overwhelming proof that at least some blacks are my intellectual superiors. I cannot close my eyes and pretend the sun is not shining.

The context in which an apparent racist statement is made

Another situation which calls for comment is where an odious statement, although true, is made in a context which has no logical connection with the statement. An example here would be if an Afrikaner excels in athletics and a member of a black race remarks that such person is a racist. There is no connection between the fact that the Afrikaner excels in athletics and the allegation (even if true). So watch it!

Racist behaviour and the mind of the perpetrator

We now examine the required mental element in a racist statement (ie an odious one which is not even remotely considered true or made in an improper context).

It can be stated without fear of contradiction that a mere racist thought has no effect for obvious reasons (the religious might beg to differ on this one though). So, for the concretion of an odious statement into a racist one, it has to progress beyond a mere mental stage.

There at least has to be an utterance or communication or an act which is indicative of a racist view. The utterance/communication requirement is clear enough. An act which points to racism requires some elucidation. This would, for example, be the case where I refuse to employ, allow into my establishment or refuse my daughter's hand in marriage solely on the grounds of a person's race (and my negative perceptions of the group such person belongs to). Of course the racist element will have to be inferred from the facts as it is unlikely that the racist will advertise his true views (there is an element of shame connected with being racist - very few people will confess to that disposition). Curiously enough one probably deals here with a situation where the racist mental attitude renders an act which is otherwise neutral, objectionable.

The required mental attitude of the person also has to be such that he wants to indulge in racist behaviour. For example, the mistaken belief in the truth of a statement which would take that statement outside the net of racism, is not a racist statement. I mean, how can one call someone a racist if he mistakenly call all Indians, crooks. If he would not have made that statement had he known the true state of affairs, he is as innocent as a new born babe.

But is it not possible to make racist statements with a negligent frame of mind (in the sense that I should have made reasonable enquiries about the truth of my statement before publishing it on the internet) Oh come on! Have you ever heard of a negligent racist?

Racist jokes

Can a joke be racist? No, never! Racist intentions take the joke beyond the boundaries of humour and it then becomes racism. Racism may be disguised as a joke but then it is in actual fact not a joke anymore.

Consider the folowing example: "He is a white man nearest a black I have ever seen" The worst imagined qualities of the black group are projected onto the white person who becomes the laughing stock of the conversation. There is no attempt to justify or quantify the objectionable black qualities. In fact it is left entirely to one's imagination (interestingly enough this implies that there is a core of racism in our consciousness which can be accessed without direct reference). All that is portrayed is that black is bad and white should be good, but in this particular instance, is not. No justification for the judgement about blacks is given. On the face of it a racist remark.

However if the underlying tenor of the statement is that stereotypes are a joke and that in making the statement, I am jokingly pretending to be a racist, the whole thing changes.

How does racism work?

There are two stages in the creation of racism, the first stage being the creation of a group with an evil smell. This by itself can amount to racism.

The second stage entails the projection of the odium associated with a group unto an individual. This second stage cannot occur without the first but when both are present can also amount to racism.

Interestingly enough the process also starts with an individual (or small group) as it is his charcteristics (most likely factually accurate) which are projected onto the target group right at the beginning.

This implies that racism is perverted factual observation/experience as the initial odium must have been present at least in one individual (and probably in more). After all, unless I am very evil, why would I suck things out of my thumb anyone can see is untrue?

A group, as a concept, is neutral and it can only be specific members who can give content to the concept of the group. The group thus acquire an odium via individuals which then is reprojected onto the individual group members when the second stage racist intervention occurs. Although the individual is the victim of racism, the group can also be affected in the sense that that group is selected for special discriminatory measures (do I hear the word apartheid?)

It remains to point out that the ambit of racism is rather restricted. It is really only in those instances where

(a) I know that my statement is false but motivated by sheer malice, I proceed to plant the barb (or discriminate), or

(b) I plant the barb in a context where it is not relevant (even if true),

that I can be considered a racist properly so called. If I joke or am mistaken as to the factual basis of my statement/actions, I remain innocent of racism.

For a link also on this topic (but in Afrikaans) see http://www.praag.org/opstelle.htm

[Edited by cjm on 9th June 2002 at 22:29]
__________________
"You only live once, but that is quite enough"

9th June 2002 22:06