No one perceives merely color when they think about race.
In a recent article of mine, I present for the reader an analysis of what I argued are two distinct but intimately related phenomena, what I called White Ignorance and Black Guilt. For the fact that my work provoked thought, I feel nothing but gratitude. It is because some of that thought is misplaced, however, that I here attempt to rectify it.
Curiously, one reader asserted that only the simple-minded feel the need to identify themselves in terms of their racial background. This reader asks, rhetorically, why it is that he should be expected to identify with those who share his race, rather than his "values." Now, I cannot be certain that it is to me that he posed his challenge; a previous poster may have elicited it. I certainly hope that the latter is the case, for there isn't so much as a syllable in my essay that could remotely suggest to anyone who read it that I endorse a dualism of the sort advanced by the likes of such philosophers as Plato and/or Descartes — and rejected by Christianity — between the body — "race" — and the mental or spiritual — "values." And much less can I be interpreted as advocating identification with the former over and against the latter.
Rather, what I spoke of was, on the one hand, "racial awareness" or "racial consciousness" — the awareness or consciousness of oneself as a member of a specific race, and, on the other, its indispensability and, hence, inevitability in a multi-racial world. I stated that because it is impossible to avoid recognizing oneself as white, black, or other, there was nothing in itself objectionable in doing so. Yet my observation concerning the inescapability of deriving one's self-identity from one's racial awareness can no more justify the conclusion that I claim race is the only term in which self-identity is formed than the observation that gasoline is necessary for a car to work can justify the proposition that gasoline is all that is necessary for a car to work: racial considerations inform self-identity, but so do other, non-racial considerations.
Furthermore, race, as I noted in other articles, including the article here under discussion, is emphatically not just a biological or color phenomenon: race — at least insofar as its function in contemporary American politics and culture is concerned — is as much about ideology — or "values" — as color. Hence, the sharp duality that this reader implies is without place in this discussion. Whether we are consciously aware of this fact or not, it is indeed a fact that no one, including and especially those who wish to render race as irrelevant as a hiccup by reducing it to a mere sensory impression of color and then falsely dichotomize it with "values," ever perceives merely color when they think about race. In addition to color, the concept of race consists of a constellation of "colorless" considerations — "values" — that are implicitly and, for the most part, intuited, as opposed to rationally or consciously identified. This, no doubt, accounts for why even in multi-racial societies like our own, societies moreover that for decades have labored tirelessly to convince the populace that race is an irrelevancy, the overwhelming majority of people of all races make decisions regarding the most intimate aspects of their lives on racial grounds: most people date, marry, reside with, befriend, and attend school with those of the same race.
None of this, though, is to suggest either that race is identical with values or that it determines values. Yet "real world" experience, as opposed to utopian speculation, has firmly established that race, however fallible an indicator of culture, is nevertheless a reliable one.
Another reader tacitly accused me of engaging in "mental gymnastics" for arguing that the all-purpose tool of "racism" to account for President Obama's remarks pertaining to the Henry Louis Gates fiasco may be more a function of White Ignorance than a legitimate explanation. I suppose that when a line of thought proves either too challenging for a person to follow or its conclusions appear undesirable yet irrefutable to him, he will derisively label it an exercise in "mental gymnastics." Obama is a "racist," this reader insisted, and then proceeded to show why.
Yet in advising people to avoid hurling accusations of "racism" against Obama (and, for that matter, others), I didn't mean for a second to imply that the President doesn't harbor racial hostilities toward whites. Quite the contrary, in fact, and I have written at length about this. Obama's first memoir is invaluable for the insight it supplies into his racial psyche, and when it is considered within the context of everything else we now know of him — his alliances (not "associations") and policies — there can no longer remain in the mind of anyone with an iota of intellectual honesty any doubt concerning the President's racial attitudes.
However, as I have argued in the past, "racism" is a term that is saddled with problems under the weight of which it threatens to collapse in on itself. Though I didn't rehash any of these arguments in this last article, I did reiterate both my contempt for the word as well as my desire that it should fall into disuse. So, when the reader indicts me for my failure to charge Obama with "racism," his reasoning is logically tantamount to that of the Christian who tries to convince the atheist that Jesus is divine by pointing to the Gospels. Just as the latter attempt is bound to fail because of the atheist's refusal to accept the chief terms of the Christian's case — the veracity of the Bible — so the reader's attempt to persuade me of the "racism" of Obama or anyone else is bound to fail because of my refusal to accept the principle terms of his argument — the meaningfulness of "racism."
As Selwyn Duke, a regular contributor to this website, as well as others have rightly argued, "racism" originated within the ranks of the Left and continues to derive most of its life from its use by the political Left as an ideological weapon to harm, and sometimes destroy, its opponents. Within recent years, a growing number of folks on the Right have tried appropriating the term in order to accomplish the same objectives, but usually with none of the success of their left-wing counterparts. These reasons, in addition to those I have cited elsewhere in my case against "racism," inform my steadfast refusal to use the term as a pejorative.
Finally, a reader somehow thought that mine was the position that only whites were or could be "racist." I must admit, I found this charge especially amusing, for never have I even come close to being on the receiving end of it. Be that as it may, I appreciate the reader's willingness to point out the absurdity of the notion, lamentably all too common among some of the contemporary world's "deepest thinkers," that only whites can and/or do harbor racially-oriented animosities. However, for the foregoing reasons, I obviously cannot join him in employing the term "racism" to label these animosities. Also, it isn't just the utopian fantasy of White Ignorance that I condemn for undermining racial good will but its partner in crime, Black Guilt. Actually, it's probably accurate to say that Black Guilt is even more culpable than White Ignorance, for while the altruistic motives purportedly underwriting it are for the most part illusory, many, and perhaps most, of the adherents of White Ignorance sincerely want an end to inter-racial hostilities; those inflicted with Black Guilt, in contrast, seek to further them so as to assuage their own consciences and advance their own interests.
A genuinely honest dialogue, not on "racism," but on race relations, cannot begin until the central terms of conventional racial discourse are themselves put into radical question and new terms, like White Ignorance and Black Guilt, explored.
Since I am the unnamed reader who “tacitly” (it was, in reality, directly) accused Kerwick of using mental gymnastics to avoid using the word “racism” in situations where the “r” word is accurate and appropriate, and since Dr. Kerwick has evidently taken such a keen interest in my opinions as reflected in his correspondence here, I suppose I will craft a response, although Mr. Kerwick has made it explicitly clear that disagreement with his assessment is neither welcome nor legitimate (leaving aside his responses in the preceding link, we can ascertain from this very piece that all disagreement with Kerwick’s analysis was the result of the misinformation, ignorance, or downright stupidity of the disagreeing agitators – no reasonable person could or would disagree with Dr. Kerwick if they could simply wrap their feeble minds around his esoteric brilliance).
Jack,
Your line of thought was hardly too challenging to follow or confusing for me, or any of your other readers. Please do not flatter yourself into thinking that your intellect is such that your thought process is inaccessible to those who you perceive (and again, I stress that word heavily) as being intellectually beneath you. Disagreement with your line of reasoning and the conclusions reached because of it does not spring solely from the mindlessness of ill-informed and under-educated plebeians who simply cannot understand you (and since you have made it abundantly clear that my undergraduate degree and relatively young age are grounds for dismissal of my comments outright, you should know that one of the unnamed readers you take to task in this defense is both older you and in possession of a PhD in political science – not a lowly simpleton like me).
Furthermore, your conclusion was only “undesirable” to me in the sense that it denies the legitimate use of a legitimate piece of language for purely political reasons. In the same manner that you refuse to accept the standard English-language definition of the word “racism” and therefore proscribe its use as a descriptive term, I refuse to accept your premise that the modern connotations of the word deprive it of its actual meaning and that its usage should therefore be abandoned in favor of long and meandering case-by-case philosophical analyses of behavior that indeed fits the standard definition of “racism”. Pointing me to more places where you wrote the same thing does not establish the veracity of your case any more than reading my response to your piece 200 more times would do the same for you. If you understand how my argument falls apart when you reject my premise, you should (being an in-demand adjunct philosophy instructor with such a remarkably strong understanding of, and specialty in, logic and reasoning) be able to understand why your argument falls apart when I reject your premise. Unlike you, however, I did not endeavor to establish the intellectual deficiency of any and all who disagree with my premise.
>Curiously, one reader asserted that only the simple-minded feel the need to identify themselves in terms of their racial background. This reader asks, rhetorically, why it is that he should be expected to identify with those who share his race, rather than his “values.”
Jack: That was my comment, and it wasn’t rhetorical. It was directed toward the comment by Gestell “I think that conservatives–real, honest-to-God American conservatives–should be racially aware. Their identity should be that of whites.”
We’ve been through this insanity before when the lunatics on the far, far right wanted to tell us that “race matters”.
September 11, 2006
“In Their Own Words: The Undisguised Racism of the Far, Far, Far Right”
By Phillip Ellis Jackson
Phillip Ellis Jackson takes on the far Right — and lives to tell the tale.
Okay. Maybe I’m just a glutton for punishment, and like the guy who knows the twelve-day-old carton of milk in the fridge is probably bad, I still have to take a swig just to make sure.
Or maybe I grew up believing that it’s better to confront ignorance and duplicity wherever it is than let it slide just to avoid a fight.
Either way, I’ve been having a little conversation the last few days with so-called “Real Conservatives” that absolutely needs to be shared with everyone who visits this website. It says a lot about the Conservative movement in America, and a lot about ourselves, much of it disturbing. But it’s something we need to recognize and confront and call it for what it is, rather than pretend it isn’t there, or we risk going the way of present day Liberalism where the inmates have taken over control of the asylum.
So for those of you who haven’t been following the great Macaca controversy, or dropped in on the Racial Purity Quiz that came out of the discussion of that essay, please spend a few moments perusing some of the “Enlightened” political philosophy we’ve all been treated to by the whack jobs on the far, far Right who claim they speak for genuine Conservative principles. Everyone else is either a fool or a Marxist. You can see the full expression of their beliefs by visiting “Off to the Races: The Perplexing Politics of Political Correctness” and “The True Conservative Racial Purity Quiz.” These are just the highlights, or rather lowlights, of what these people say they believe, and what they actually stand for. And it’s all in their own words. [Editor's note: many of these comments have since been deleted.]
To set the stage, the offending notion that started this all was the proposition I put forward that it’s better to know whether the person you’re dealing with is what has been euphemistically described as a “jerk,” rather than to embrace, support, avoid or oppose them simply because of their race, sex, age, religion or some other secondary characteristic.
So who’s going to argue with that? I thought. It’s one of those common sense notions that’s immediately apparent to anyone who stops and thinks about it for a moment or two. Maybe someone on the far, far Left would drop by and offer their own brand of insanity that would be good for a laugh, but other than that I figured the conversation would focus on Senator Byrd vs. Senator Allen, and we’d fight over the moral equivalency of “Macaca” vs. “white n*gg*r.”
But then I did something very wrong in the eyes of The Radical Right That Wants Us To Believe They Are The Only “Real” Conservatives. I clarified a point I made in my original essay by saying, “I don’t judge the intrinsic value of a person by the color of their skin, their gender, their attractiveness, etc., which is why I said ‘in the final analysis I don’t really care about a person’s color, sex or other qualities’.”
This is where it started, when the first Real Conservative informed us all that, for “Traditional Conservatives . . . Race does matter. So does loyalty to one’s family, ancestors, region, blood and soil, kin and kith.”
Kith and kin? I hadn’t thought about that phrase since I heard grandpappy Amos on The Real McCoys hollering for “Little Luke” to fetch him a lantern back in the early 1960s. And race does matter? Sure, to the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world who’ve turned it into a weapon for their own personal political objectives. This was precisely the point of my original essay. Only instead of some clown on the Left trying to tell us we should all make our decisions based on race, I’ve got some guy who says he’s a “Real Conservative” saying the same thing.
And it didn’t stop here. It opened up the floodgate for a series of comments on why we needed to focus on race, bloodlines, DNA, etc. as the determining factor in any decision. They were all coming out of the woodwork, but it wasn’t the wacky Left. It was the people who said that they, and only they, spoke for True Conservative Values, and anyone who didn’t share their view was a Commie-lib apostate.
Like I said before, you can visit the comment sections of the two essays and see the full quotes from all the Real Conservatives, so all I’m doing here is hitting the key points. But what I want you to see for yourself in this essay is how the overt racism of this merry little band of True Believers is disguised at first in lofty, “intellectual” principles. When pressed, these principles begin to give way to personal claims of genetic superiority. And when the discussion is fully engaged, the true motives and intent of these miscreants is fully exposed.
So here it is in their own words — what it means to be a one and only Real Conservative:
● Unlike you, I am a real conservative. I’d never support a “color-blind society.” Obviously you have been brainwashed by crackpot Leftists. Not only does race matter, but I think that whites should promote their own racial interests. All other races do it, but whites think that it is wrong for themselves to do it.
● Like my hero T.S. Eliot, I support segregation. And there is not a damn thing wrong with this.
● If you look at traditional philosophical conservatism (e.g. Weaver, Kirk, et al), there is much allowance for distinctions made on race, etc. Kirk, Weaver and Eliot all supported segregation – a very wise concept.
● Conservatives should rail against the meaningless abstractions of the Enlightenment (such as “we are all equal”), and harbour a more traditionalist outlook: kith and kin / blood and soil. As Cicero said of natural law in De Legibus, it is based upon traditions of the “ancestors.”
● Traditionally, blood and soil / kin and kith have been central to conservatism. Aristotle supported such a concept, borrowing the very phrase “blood and soil” from Plato. St. Augustine supported this as well.
●Blood lines are important and so are their proximity. In modern terms, the more DNA you share with someone, the more your obligation will be to this person.
● Only a left-wing ideologue or utopianistic neoconservative would say that race is unimportant. Race is important, and so is a proud and strong defense [of] segregation. If God wanted one race, he would have made us all beige. But he in fact created different races – distinct – and we should respect his divisions.
● According to recent DNA studies (see U. Penn Genetics Survey), about 95% of “white Americans” are of pure European blood. Probably about 5% would have one African ancestor out of about 256 ancestors. True, many blacks and whites had babies together, but there was the “one drop rule” and these kids would have been considered black, and never would have “crossed the racial line,” which is why you only have about 5% of whites with African blood.
● I know I am of pure noble blood. I have DNA proof, and I have my genealogy back to the 14th Century Europe, tied to noble homes. I suspect Phil Jackson to be of an inferior blood line – hence his anger and frustration. You can’t help but pity him. Poor guy.
● Like Kirk and Weaver (the “fathers of American conservatism”), I think that race does matter. It is natural for races to want to keep to themselves. It has always been this way (think of mandatory ethnic segregation in Ancient Greece or Rome, or in Jerusalem, or in Medieval or Modern Europe). This is God’s plan. I do not want to interfere with it.
● If all other races promote the interests of their race (you see blacks and Asians doing this every day), and whites do not, won’t this put whites at a disadvantage in the long run? This seems very straightforward to me. It is a matter of survival.
Note: This is where the Real Conservatives began to move away from Plato and Locke and traditional values that “demanded” racial segregation as a constituent part of Real Conservatism, and started to drift into some equally important (to them) related issues. We already had a brief foreshadowing of this in the need to talk about inferior blood lines and noble parentage — all validated by proper DNA testing, of course. But even when we were treated to the “one drop rule” to accurately classify “African blood,” it was still treated as a cerebral exercise.
● Trying to integrate with segregationist blacks leads to absurdities. After all, not even Martin Luther King, Jr. believed his own line about “the content of their character,” which he, after all, uttered in a speech in which he elsewhere demanded race-based affirmative action and reparations.
● Phil is even more of a saint, if that is possible, than MLK was. He manages to remain color-blind, in spite of having been singled out for brutal beatings and robberies; and having been arrested on false charges, and gang-raped in prison, based on the color of his skin; the women in his life having been singled out and raped, robbed, and murdered; and his young children having been cursed, threatened, their bones broken, and robbed; all based solely on the color of their skin.
Note: Uh, just to be clear here, to the best of my knowledge I’ve never been gang-raped in prison. It’s something I think I’d remember, just like I’d remember being in prison in the first place if that actually happened.
However, I did call for these anonymous Real Conservatives to actually identify themselves (as I do by using my full name) rather than hide behind a fictitious code name while taking their principled stand. I mean, if they’re so proud of their 14th-century genetically pure bloodline, and this is a critical element in their decision process about how to understand and implement Real Conservative values, shouldn’t we all at least know who our superiors are who are instructing us?
A few people accepted this challenge, including Sir Anthony who I’m sure was attracted to this philosophy because he’d given it a lot of critical, independent thought; the fact that it keeps the lower classes in place just a coincidental side benefit. But for the most part everyone still hid — including the guy with noble DNA-certified Class A white European blood.
● But I do have one question for St. Phil. Given that whites who publicly make statements (e.g., that race matters or even much milder ones, such as “we should teach all black children Standard English”) using their real names that show less saintly enlightenment than he does risk being fired from their jobs and whitelisted from their professions, while blacks who make the same sort of statements are rewarded with prestigious, high-paying jobs and book deals, why does he reserve his ire for whites? After all, I know that given his own moral purity, he would never call on whites to sign their real names to a defense of segregation, while hoping – and helping – that their lives will be destroyed. Right?
● I definitely support segregation. It is a part of human nature. Only a utopianist tries to undo human nature with Big Brother projects (racial integration, busing, etc.).
Note: I guess some of the Real Conservative opinion leaders were becoming Real Concerned at this point that the naked face of racism was beginning to peek out from beneath their lofty political rationalizations, and the only way to maintain the fiction that they were acting on principle was to redefine the argument. So the noblest of the noble blood spokesmen jumped back in to, as they say in Congress, “revise and extend my previous remarks.”
● I never said that a belief in segregation is a necessary condition for being a conservative. On the contrary, I meant that opposing segregation cannot be a necessary condition for being a conservative, especially if you recognize that many of the “godfathers” of conservatism were supporters of it.
● NeoMarxists created the charge of ‘racism.’ They realized that they could not win the war on ‘class’ alone so many in the Frankfurt School decided that using the charge of ‘racism’ to attack whites would be a good way to break up European solidarity. Phil, to use your NeoMarxist classification of ‘racist,’ I am not a racist at all. I just find pseudo-intellectuals like you amusing.
● I do not support Locke, who is mostly a rights-based theorist. I question any strong reliance of “rights” because they are largely a fiction of the liberal Enlightenment.
● [Regarding] the importance of kin and kith / blood and soil when considering tradition. Yes, Phil, tradition. Since these concepts have been very important for the past 2,000 years at least, probably since the beginning of time, it would be (as Burke would say) a little dangerous just to dismiss them.
Note: Well, the memo didn’t get circulated in time to steer the discussion back to Classical literature, although even that was beginning to fall apart from its own weight. When the only way you can support your position is to say that the notion of “rights” are a pre-Communist plot to mix the races, you’ve already taken the first sip of kool-aid, and are now asking for seconds. So it wasn’t much of a surprise to see the following comments rally to support the Real Conservative Cause. Not factoring in race from the outset when assessing the intrinsic value of another person or their ideas, as my original essay proposed, now meant “hating white people.”
● Avoiding race/skin color as the singular means of determining ‘intrinsic worth’ would be foolish on massive scale, ignoring it altogether is equally foolish if not stupid and ignorant.
● Whenever did being ‘tolerant’ require self-hatred and denigration of one’s own racial identity, and history? Why does it only become a requirement if you’re white? Why is the reverse encouraged (if not mandated) for one is anything but white?
● Is it not sad that being PROUD TO BE WHITE nearly always earns one a title of ’supremacist’ or ‘bigot’?
● IF one evaluates EVEN JUST A SMALL PORTION of the copious data in articles such as the one titled “The Color of Crime: Ground-Breaking New Study Released” … (there are many such articles [and research] by the way …) then attention to — and respect for — DIFFERENCES IN RACE must be recognized.
● Being ‘created equally’ and ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights’ DID NOT MEAN, and SHOULD NOT MEAN that patterns of speech, behavior, family interaction; appetites and inclinations to conduct one’s self in a respectful/ respectable, law-abiding, civilized, and dare I say patriotic (?) COULD NOT or WOULD NOT correlate generally to race or that there WOULD NOT or MIGHT NOT be ‘interference’ to behaving in such a manner because of one’s ethnicity
● Traditional conservatives (paleoconservatives) reject the abstractions of the Enlightenment. They reject Enlightenment “rights theories,” and prefer a tradition modus vivendi of “natural hierarchies.”
● I am in agreement with folks like TS Eliot and Richard Weaver that Western Civilization made a wrong turn during the Enlightenment and we still have not recovered from it. The very fabric of our civilization is being ripped apart by cancerous abstractions such as “equal rights.”
● I work in computer programming and I’ve worked with a ton of Asians and Indians, and it’s amazing how racist they are. They are always talking about how they are racially superior to whites and how one day we’ll be their slaves.
● The other day I heard some Asians talking about how they are going to eventually “wipe out” all the whites. All other races do it. It’s about time whites get their act together.
● Whites have been trained by PC goons not to promote their interests. If all other races promote their interests, but whites do not, you might as well put the white man on the endangered species list.
● Today racial identity among whites is stronger than it was in the 1960s / 1970s. And when whites become the minority in 2030 – 2045, the identity will be very strong. I am not saying this for hyperbole, but there really are a ton of non-whites looking forward to “the year” (2040?) when it will be “payback time.” Some racial identity among whites might actually be a healthy thing.
● Regarding race and philosophers, I just dug up these quotes by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant:
– “strong smell of the Negro which cannot be avoided through any hygiene”
– “the Negro is strong, fleshy, agile, but under the rich supply of his motherland, lazy, indolent, and dallying”
– miscegenation “gradually extinguishes the characters, and is, despite any pretended philanthropy, not beneficial to mankind”
● Listen, folks. A great race war is coming. Each race will fight for its own survival. Each race will fight bravely. But in the end, only one race will survive.
Note: Fearful that their message was not getting out, Sir Anthony directed his cohorts in an open post to archive the comments and place them on the website of American Renaissance. This way the world would not be denied access to the wisdom and knowledge imparted by Real Conservatives in their replies to those of “inferior blood” like myself.
I visited the site, and wholeheartedly concur that this is a must-read for everyone who has even the slightest doubt that all the talk about tradition and classical views of politics is nothing more than a subterfuge for their racist, self-promoting agenda. This is exactly what these people are – and what they want you to be as well.
● You can see that [Phil Jackson] really hates the white race with every breath he takes.
● This Philip Jackson guy is some left-winger / neocon who thinks that whites should not be proud of their own heritage. He’s a real nutcase from what I can read.
● This guy (Phil Jackson) thinks that we should be shut down for discussing race at all.
Note: Unfortunately, I only made three of the five comments posted as of the date I wrote this essay. The remaining two were devoted to an urban legend I first heard back in the 60’s. “Didn’t someone mention a few weeks ago that he or she knew a schoolteacher who was accused of being a racist by one of those screeching project mamas because the classroom world map had on it a country named ‘Nigeria’ whose main river is called the ’Niger.’” This was followed by the compassionate statement on another topic, “Thanks be to God Jackie is a lesbian who never adopted so her evil causes will die with her.”
This, ladies and gentlemen, is a practical application of Plato and Aristotle, as interpreted by Eliot, Kirk and Weaver, and all the other “Traditional” intellectual sources that provide a foundation for believing that God has ordained that you all look at race first and foremost, except when the “one drop rule” lets you have a little impure blood in an otherwise noble bloodline.
You literally can’t make this stuff up!
We are defined by our enemies. And I can’t thank these people enough for telling the world I am definitely not one of them. But it isn’t enough to simply shake our head and wonder at the idiocy and hidden motives behind their beliefs. I’ve been taken to task by some people for using that term a lot — idiot — in replying to many of the comments above. My only explanation for this offensive word is that the editors kept deleting the words I really wanted to use, and I had to settle on this. These people want to tell you, and the world, what it means to be a “Real Conservative,” and if we let them define the movement for us through the prism of race, we’ll be no better than the lunatic Left I so often mock. These people are idiots — and worse — and we need to state this clearly, not shy away from it for fear of hurting their feelings.
These so-called “Real Conservatives” aren’t interested in the hallowed past when they quote Plato and Aristotle. Do they also support infanticide, believe that women are inferior beings who lack the rights men do, seek to impose governmental restrictions on the right to bear children, want to abolish all private property, and advocate bringing back the practice of slavery — not just racial segregation? Maybe they do, but they’re not promoting these same “principled” ideas publicly, even though these ideas flow from the same classical source.
They are simply looking for a good-sounding excuse to justify their segregationist bigotry. How many people reading this essay have ever had a DNA test performed on them to validate the genetic purity of their bloodline? And who in the 21st century gives even a moment’s thought to the “one drop rule” that allows you to rationalize away any impure blood you might find in your own family’s history?
Is this the “Conservatism” we all aspire to?
The truth is, these whack jobs want to hijack conservatism, and they mask their true motives in a reverence for “tradition.” But they have been completely exposed by their own words. I didn’t have to invent any silly-ass statements and apply it to them. All that was necessary was to let them speak, and watch how a reverence for Plato transformed into a White Pride rally to deal with “cancerous abstractions such as ‘equal rights.’”
Real Conservatives, if we even need to use this term, are not the same kind of self-serving bigots you find on the extreme Left. I’m happy to let our dirty laundry air for the world to see just how perverse these people truly are. It only shows the world that we are not them.
So each of us has a choice. We can either stand up and tell these people, and anyone else who’s listening, that we have no more interest in their brand of “Real Conservatism” than we do in any of the racist theories on the Left; or we can just allow pseudo-intellectuals with superior blood lines to tell us all what to believe because T.S. Eliot and God told them to.
The Left lost its moral compass to the bigotry of its extremists. Now it’s our turn to join that club, or expose these people for who and what they really are. If we allow Conservatism to be defined by the worst examples of humanity, we’ll end up where Liberalism is today.
Maybe, then maybe, I can get back to making fun of Liberal lunacy. But until we look under our own rug and apply the same standards to those who purport to speak on our behalf, we have no right to criticize anyone else if we, fundamentally, are no different from them.
Phil, you are slipping from the Liberal position your logic convinced me to embrace. OOPS that was becoming a Democrat…sorry.
Seems to me that there is a bottom line to this discussion. Those that believe people should be judged on their merits fall on one side of the equation. Those believing that race trumps merit fall on the other.
Right now the country has evolved into an arena where merit does not count but race does. That is unfortunate because it ignores the bell shaped curve of things like IQ and guarantees we will often reward the second or lower place finisher. Welcome to mediocrity.
Phil,
You used the word “bigot” three times, “racist” twice, and “racism” twice in that article. Three strikes, you’re out. Those words have no place in our vocabulary by proclamation of Dr. Jack Kerwick. If you believe that those words are possessed of any actual meaning or utility, I’m afraid you are just too ignorant, simple, or uneducated to behold Dr. Jack Kerwick’s staggering intellect and you are hereby disinvited from this discussion until such time as you can educate and inform yourself in order to expand your feeble, small mind to sufficiently grasp Dr. Jack Kerwick’s lofty analyses. Upon so doing you will find that your thinking was utterly and hopelessly deficient and begin adoringly worshipping before his graven image. For this man stands alone in the Pantheon, his unique and ground-breaking wisdom having far eclipsed that of the the gods or immortals. Dr. Jack Kerwick desires a civil and open dialogue, and until you can meet the above the requirements for such a conversation, it would be best if you just leave. If you want, you can jump on the short bus and head to the “Maybe It IS Everybody Else” lounge and drool into a cup with me.
Mickey: Sadly, there are fools on both sides of the political spectrum. What distinguishes our side from the other is that we expose and repudiate our fools.
To avoid a round of histrionics for those not in our previous conversations, the only times I will adopt liberal logic is when I’m talking to a liberal who — after repeated attempts — can’t think beyond his emotions [and then it’s just to illustrate an absurd point]. I mean, why limit myself by consistency and coherency of views when I can just support something on Monday because it supports my immediate needs, and then oppose it on Tuesday when I want to make a different point? Becoming a Democrat is another matter. Until the Republicans get their act together, that’s where the power lies — and that’s where I can muck things up for Obama and Co. There are some hopeful signs that the Republicans are beginning to get their act together, so we’ll have to see about the future. But for now, I’m still in the D column!
Patrick: I tend to call a spade a spade in my own writing. But, that word becomes politically charged, so I just refer to the old standby of “idiot” and “a**hole” to describe idiots and a**holes.
Generally, I’ve found that in normal conversation, when words and language are infused with additional meaning it tends to inhibit understanding, not advance it. It reminds me of a witness in a trial I once saw who spent 10 minutes denying he was “upset” about something, only to finally agree that he was “perturbed”.
Both the Left and Right use language as weapons. The Left likes to toss around words like “racism” — which means white against black discrimination based on race, but not black against white discrimination. That’s not an aid to communication, because it doesn’t address the common sense root of the issue (you don’t make a person’s race the singular, determining factor in denying or promoting something). The left also likes to refer to developing human babies in the womb as “tissue masses” and other things than “developing human babies in the womb”. Arbitrarily defining away a person’s humanity doesn’t aid in a discussion of an abortion; it distracts from it and at times deliberately confuses it.
The right is guilty of similar things too. Not every matter is an issue of “personal freedom”. But some things are, and it diminishes real attacks on liberty by lumping in things that are not core attacks on our freedoms.
Where we need to be precise in our language — as in the hard and natural sciences — we should strive for that precision. Where language is important in the law (defining rights and punishments), it should strive to be equally technical and precise. But in the normal interaction of human beings in a social and political context, I vote for common sense dictionary definitions as the practical guide to defining a word. If looking at the “content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin” really means “give ongoing, preferential treatment to one race over another”, the phrase becomes meaningless.
Nothing good ever comes from hyper-technical definitions of common sense terms that are applied to normal, every day, common sense events.
Phil,
Nevertheless, you used the words “bigot”, “racism” and “racist”. What made you choose those words, despite your stated general desire to avoid them? If I may speculate, you probably examined the material you were reading, compared it in your mind against the standard definitions of “bigot”, “racism” and “racist”, and concluded that the words “bigot”, “racism” and “racist” were accurate in describing the material. Do you now regret using the words “bigot”, “racism” and “racist” in that piece? If you do (and I sincerely doubt that you do), you shouldn’t. They were accurate, in that they were described (nearly perfectly, actually) by the definition of the word “racism”. To deny yourself the perfectly accurate and legitimate use of a word is absurd and shouldn’t even warrant serious discussion. This entire endeavor is akin to removing all of the wedges from your golf bag as a political statement because you think they are over-played clubs. Seems like a great idea until you’re stuck in a bunker 5 yards from the green and a sand wedge would be an absolutely ideal club to play instead of taking 12 shots as you struggle to hit the ball out of the sand with your 9 iron. The solution to your objection to the over-use of the wedges is to only play them when they are appropriate – not to hobble yourself by using the wrong club because you foolishly discarded your wedges.
Arbitrarily defining away a person’s humanity doesn’t aid in a discussion of an abortion; it distracts from it and at times deliberately confuses it…The right is guilty of similar things too.
No kidding! It seems to me like arbitrarily defining away racial preference, racial bias, and race-supremacism because the word that basically universally defines these characteristics and behaviors isn’t your cup of tea would pretty much qualify. “Racism” isn’t any less “racism” because you qualify it or justify it or re-define it in decidely less universal and ambiguous self-crafted terms which virtually no one unfamiliar with your writing will understand without extensive explanation. Any more than “terrorism” is any less “terrorism” if it is referred to as a “man-caused disaster”, and the reasons for the actions of the terrorist examined and scrutinized and defined instead of the actual actions of the terrorist. There probably isn’t a more loaded term than “terrorist”, but I don’t notice Dr. Jack Kerwick sending us down tablets from the mount to regulate the usage of the term. Perhaps he should. In fact, it would be most instructive if he could kindly compile such legalities for the usage of every word for those of us still simple, ignorant, uneducated, and ill-informed enough to recklessly toss around adjectives based on something so trivial, ambiguous and arbitrary as their present definition.
Or stated another way: a complicated explanation for a behavior or event or thing is not necessarily an indication of a more thoughtful analysis or superior definition of a behavior or event or thing. Just because Dr. Jack Kerwick “unlike most people of whom I am aware, and certainly unlike you, for whom it is all so simple, so clear,…” has “thought about these issues in fairly unconventional ways” and concluded that a 2 page essay is a better way to define particular behaviors than a succinct, single, (and I’m sure Dr. Jack Kerwick would argue, simplistic) word, does not necessarily make his analysis any better than the less complex explanation. The law of economy may be instructive here.
>Nevertheless, you used the words “bigot”, “racism” and “racist”. What made you choose those words, despite your stated general desire to avoid them? If I may speculate, you probably examined the material you were reading, compared it in your mind against the standard definitions of “bigot”, “racism” and “racist”, and concluded that the words “bigot”, “racism” and “racist” were accurate in describing the material.
** Bingo!
>Do you now regret using the words “bigot”, “racism” and “racist” in that piece?
** Not at all. They conveyed the exactly correct image/thought. No other word was necessary, from a common-sense point of view when I was making my point. In this I seem to be in complete agreement with one of your major themes.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with anyone who wants to expand the vocabulary to address an issue that isn’t properly covered by existing words and terms. But the onus here would be on the person/person’s using non-conventional wisdom definitions/descriptions to first fully articulate the new concept, and then justify why the new language choice is necessary.
Or in other words, sometimes an a-hole is just an a-hole, and no further psychological or social exploration is necessary.
Remember, it’s all about communicating a clear concept. Debate is not possible when the terms are too complicated to allow this dialogue to take place(which includes words that are value-laden, politically correct or socially re-defined)
Or, put another way, above all — eschew obfuscation.
the onus here would be on the person/person’s using non-conventional wisdom definitions/descriptions to first fully articulate the new concept, and then justify why the new language choice is necessary.
I think Dr. Jack Kerwick has done exactly that, I just don’t think his case for abolishing the term “racism” or “racist” or “bigot” is any stronger than the case for abolishing the word “Nazi” or “terrorist” or “bicycle” or “table”. Just because “Bush is a Nazi” is a tired slogan and theme of leftists doesn’t mean I should write a treatise explaining German National Socialism and the reasons for its rise to prominence in the wake of the Weimar Republic when “Hitler was a Nazi” would be just as accurate, for no other reason than to avoid using the word “Nazi” because I think it is overused as a pejorative.
Lest we forget, Dr. Jack Kerwick’s original exposition on his newly created constructs of White Ignorance and Black Guilt was inspired by the use of the word “racist” to describe Barack Obama’s behavior vis-a-vis the Louis Henry Gates Jr. arrest. Was there any real value in not using the word racist, regardless of its accuracy in describing the president’s behavior, simply because Dr. Jack Kerwick thinks the word is no longer relevant or instructive? And was Dr. Jack Kerwick justified in referring to those who do choose to use the word “racist” as simple and small-minded? I didn’t think so, but then that’s why Dr. Jack Kerwick has so graciously expended about 5 pages of text explaining to me why I am arrogant, smug, stupid, ignorant, incapable of discussion, incapable of grasping his argument, afraid of his argument, not worth arguing with, abrasive, obnoxious, abusive, simple, condescending, shallow, crude, dogmatic, self-righteous, unthinking, and (my personal favorite) hurling ad-hominem attacks upon him (including “leveling accustions” constructed of words which I have not used). I guess if you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance… bully ‘em with baseball bats?
Maybe it’s just me, but race plays a near zero role in how I evaluate things. I identify with people who hold my values, not with people who have my skin color. When I see a white person make an idiotic comment, I focus on the comment not the person. Ditto black or any other race. I’d rather live in a neighborhood where I am the only white person with others who share my values, than with people with whom I have a common ‘racial identity’ but no values in common.
When I see Al Sharpton on TV I see only a charlatan and a fool, the same as I see Chris Dodd. Their skin color plays no role. I don’t see a black president, a half-black president, or a half-white president when I see Obama. I see Jimmy Carter. I’d love to have Bobby Jindal as my president. I’d hate to have Hillary Clinton as my president (though I’d prefer her to Obama, not because she’s white, but because she’s marginally less dangerous to this country).
I think a lot of people who value ideas over emotions, who have a sense of right and wrong independent of political calculations, feel this way. It isn’t non-racial or post racial, it’s just trying to be true to your values. Race, sex, ethnicity, left-or-right handiness, where your grandfather was born, or any other superficial characteristic aren’t the fundamental things that drive my decisions.
>I have argued in the past, “racism” is a term that is saddled with problems under the weight of which it threatens to collapse in on itself. Though I didn’t rehash any of these arguments in this last article, I did reiterate both my contempt for the word as well as my desire that it should fall into disuse. So, when the reader indicts me for my failure to charge Obama with “racism,” his reasoning is logically tantamount to that of the Christian who tries to convince the atheist that Jesus is divine by pointing to the Gospels. Just as the latter attempt is bound to fail because of the atheist’s refusal to accept the chief terms of the Christian’s case — the veracity of the Bible — so the reader’s attempt to persuade me of the “racism” of Obama or anyone else is bound to fail because of my refusal to accept the principle terms of his argument — the meaningfulness of “racism.”
Jack: I think this is the crux of the issue — or should I say, crux of the disagreement about the issue. To my mind, you are intertwining two related, but distinct issues:
1. Is there indeed such a thing as “racism,” which at its essence is making decisions or taking actions based primarily upon the race of another human being? And,
2. Has the use of the term “racism” been so distorted by hidden agendas, political correctness, deliberate misuses of the term, etc. to render it ineffective or meaningless in certain present day context?
I think the answer to both questions is “yes”, but the prescription isn’t necessarily to abandon the word. “Racist” is actually a very good description of what is happening in many circumstances.
Abandoning use of this word surrenders it to the Left and others who have perverted its meaning. The Left will still continue to use it as a hammer to promote their causes, and an effective one at that, because even though it’s become distorted by their shenanigans, it still has a common-sense understanding to it that many people will hear when they hear the word.
Al Gore used to talk a lot about Republican “schemes”. That word in itself isn’t pejorative, but it has in recent years come to be associated with underhanded ways of acting. By not “fighting back” and challenging that term — either by forcefully objecting to the unfair innuendo when used by Gore, or by using it back against him in the same way — the impression was left that Republicans/conservatives “scheme” against the common interests of the country, instead of simply offering an alternative view of how things should work.
We need to use the word “racist” against the Left when they act in a racial way. We need to pound them with this word to highlight the hypocrisy of their own actions. We need to either force people to think of the word correctly (that is, stripped of its agendas and partisan politics), or we need to render it meaningless by making the word a synonym for “I disagree with you”, since at its essence that is what the Left has done. Only they’ve made it a one-way disagreement (you object to Obama’s policies; you’re a racist). If that’s the game, then let’s use it as it’s really intended to be used: you make decisions based on race, which is wrong.
At best it will restore the common-sense meaning of the word. At worst it will muddle things enough to render it ineffective as a weapon of the Left against the Right. Either outcome is a good one from a strategic sense. But it is not a good choice to cede the term by avoiding its use when it actually describes a situation, and instead try to substitute a new word, phrase or thought process.
So yes, the word “racist” has become convoluted. But letting it become the sole province of the Left is no solution. (Whatever new strategy you or others might suggest, they will not abandon an effective weapon).
As a purely analytical tool you may indeed be correct that other terms need to be employed to accurately describe a situation. But that’s inside baseball stuff. As a political strategy, it cedes too much ground to the other side to self-select out of using the word.
Obama should be called a racist if he acts in a racist manner. If it’s an accurate description of what he does, it will both help restore the language, and reduce the effectiveness of those who use the phrase as a weapon against the right while excusing identical behaviors on the part of the Left.
Phil,
Obviously I could never possibly comprehend writing, or thought, or logic of the hyper-elevated, omni-dimensional level of a Dr. Jack Kerwick, as I am but a simple person with a child-like ability to perceive reality only in the most conventional and primitive sort of ways, and far be it from me to ever be so insolent and arrogant to suggest such a thing, but it seems to me that Dr. Jack Kerwick believes precisely the opposite:
Whether we are consciously aware of this fact or not, it is indeed a fact that no one, including and especially those who wish to render race as irrelevant as a hiccup by reducing it to a mere sensory impression of color and then falsely dichotomize it with “values,” ever perceives merely color when they think about race.
It is Dr. Jack Kerwick’s contention that you are unaware of, but no less conducting at a sub-conscious level, a co-equal evaluation of color, values, and culture in your own mind when you perceive race. Values and culture are as integral a component of race as color. Remember:
race… is emphatically not just a biological or color phenomenon: race — at least insofar as its function in contemporary American politics and culture is concerned — is as much about ideology — or “values” — as color
I suppose the corollary to this is either that someone who shares your values also shares your race, regardless of their skin color, or that everyone of a particular skin color shares identical values that create the self-identity that is their race. The implications are… interesting either way.
Patrick:
Never getting in the way of a good pissing match, since I’ve had a few of my own with other people, I support your basic position in that I’m just not comfortable with this whole racial awareness thing, which gives rise to White Ignorance or Black Guilt.
I don’t deny that such things may actually exist, however. I think there are some ignorant (formerly “guilty”) white liberals who make social, economic and political decisions based on race. They do this supposedly to remedy the ‘sins’ of the past. And they are indeed ignorant when they do this, understanding little really about other people they have lumped together by race.
In addition, I know that certain ethnic groups like blacks can feel uncomfortable or confused when they try to adopt the cultural trappings of what they see as distinct racial groups. As an example, some blacks who work hard to get a good middle class job are seen as sell outs by other blacks.
The difference I have with this analytical construct, however, rests on two main points.
1. There are plenty of white people who are seen as sell outs when they try to succeed in society. These people come from lower socio-economic class environments and are ridiculed by their peers. This has nothing to do with race. It’s a natural phenomena of stupid, jealous people wanting to validate their own stupid, hopeless way of life by keeping everyone else down. Misery, in effect, loves company. You can translate this phenomena to any other “authentic” issue: you’re not authentically Southern enough, authentically Italian enough, authentically intellectual enough (i.e. didn’t attend the right school, so you shouldn’t be permitted to succeed Sarah Palin, etc.)
2. As far as “White Ignorance demands a post-racial or trans-racial world, the end of all racial awareness,” that is indeed a great example of ignorance; white, brown, black or other. [I’m not calling jack ignorant for making this comment, just saying that people who believe such things are indeed ignorant.] This is a great operational difference of liberalism. You want to believe X is real (man-made global warming, we can spend our way into prosperity, that being nicer to terrorists will show them we can one day get along together, etc), so it becomes ‘real’. But it isn’t. It’s just a fantasy with really bad real-world consequences.
When I see a black person, I still recognize the color of their skin. I just don’t form my core decisions about that person based on this factor any more than I do their height, regional accent, or shoe size. I evaluate them and make my decisions ultimately on their values and other attributes (intelligence, experience, wisdom, sense of decency, etc.) This isn’t post-racial or trans-racial; it’s common sense. If they want the same general things out of life that I do, and have led a life that indicates they have some real substance to their lives, they are the people I want to live next to/associate with/vote for, and so on.
So yes, people are racially aware in that they do see skin color. The question is, do they make fundamental choices based on this factor. Those that do, I contend, are “racist”. There are black racists and white racists and racists of every stripe. It’s a good word to describe people who elevate race in their decisions either through deliberate calculation, or simple laziness and stupidity where they have bought into a philosophy that race matters.
Race supposedly matters because we need to ‘protect’ ourselves against other races, or ‘promote’ disadvantaged people strictly on the basis of race. In the latter case, we give affirmative action admissions to the son of two black professionals educated in a private school because he’s black, and make the son of two white dirt-farmers who had a substandard education in the hills of Appalachia compete without any special exemptions simply because of the skin color of each. It doesn’t make any difference that the impetus for this is to solve a ‘societal problem’. By ignoring the individuals and focusing on race as a core factor, the policy is race-based, race-oriented, or put simple, just plain racist.
People like myself and others who refuse to play this game, and who hold people to account for their values and actions regardless of their race by making no distinction between the same act by individuals of different skin color, can be said to be acting post-racial I suppose. But it’s not post-racial in the sense that we deny that race still forms a large part of people’s thinking today. Unfortunately it does (there are a lot of ’well-intentioned’ as well as rabid racists, but they are still racist if race is a fundamental part of their decision process). It’s post-racial in that we refuse to act this way, and seek to educate and hold others to a higher account.
So yes, I believe that some of what Jack describes is correct, in that guilty white liberals and race-bating minorities use race as a weapon, and through this generate and perpetuate ignorant stereotypes about people and society based on race. This creates a climate where if enough people buy into these notions, these notions can and do affect policy. Therefore, even though it’s idiotic to reduce issues to skin color, we can’t wish away the fact that it’s done, and we need to understand this when we promote and implement our own policies.
Where I differ, I believe, is that I wouldn’t elevate this racism to ask people to begin “thinking along these lines”, other than to recognize that this ignorance and stupidity exists in certain pockets of the country. Having recognized how people have perverted the notion of race into agenda-driven political goals, I’d use their own words to re-focus the national conversation back to the true core issues.
It’s why I’m comfortable calling a racist a racist, why I talk about pro-abortion positions instead of pro-choice positions, and so on.
When you lose the language, you lose the ability to communicate your ideas clearly and forthrightly. People who act as Jack described in his article (White Ignorant and Black Guilt) need to be called out and condemned, not given new labels. This is where he and I appear to disagree on a fundamental point.
One final point to drive this home. Jack says “to most whites, the phenomenon of affluent and privileged blacks like Henry Louis Gates, Jr. harboring racial grievances toward the United States is a baffling curiosity”. Not to me. He’s a typical elitist pseudointellectual snob, which has nothing to do with his skin color. Where race comes into play is the importance he has attached to race to help drive his career, and validate other lifestyle choices, perhaps reinforced by a liberal education system that does the same, or a community of like-minded friends and associates who do the same, so that race has become paramount in everything that happens around him. He’s no different than the neo-Nazi who thinks that white people are being threatened by the existence of other races, and builds his world view around this phony construct. Gates’ world view automatically suspects the police the way Norman Rockwell’s world view saw Jews behind every corner. Believing something stupid doesn’t make it real. [I wish I could find the Chris Rock link about “what not to say to a police officer” to drive this point home].
At some point these things become self-reinforcing and drive actions. But it is the actions we should be addressing, not the racial aspects to it. Anyone who mouths off to a cop is going to get grief back in return.
Phil,
I have to apologize if my sarcasm towards Jack has been distracting or has obscured the real point of the discussion. But being called arrogant, or smug, or intellectually deficient, or not interested in genuine dialogue by a balloon-headed “philosopher” a year out of a doctoral program who fancies himself the modern analogue (though clear intellectual superior) to Russell Kirk, and who ascribes such profundity to his own thoughts and analyses as to scold another author for failing to respect his personal value-judgment of a piece of language as if it were an immutable and self-evident fact is just a bit too precious. However, this could hardly be considered a pissing contest, because Jack has mercifully vowed never to respond to my commentary publicly or via email ever again because of my aforementioned intellectual and personal deficiencies. So in the interest of not providing an unnecessary distraction, I will cut it out and offer my apologies.
When you lose the language, you lose the ability to communicate your ideas clearly and forthrightly. People who act as Jack described in his article (White Ignorant and Black Guilt) need to be called out and condemned, not given new labels. This is where he and I appear to disagree on a fundamental point.
This was the entire crux of my objection to Kerwick’s original piece and the follow-up “A Response to Selwyn Duke”. It muddles rather than adds clarity when you re-define terms, particularly when you use self-crafted constructs such as “White Ignorance” or “Black Guilt” or “Aboriginal Apathy” or some other concoction of your choosing. In addition to adding unnecessary complexity to an already complex and politically supercharged issue, the terms that Kerwick introduces and procedes to elucidate (White Ignorance/Black Guilt) are not at all adequate to replace the word “racism” because they explain, define, and justify the REASONS or CAUSES of an action instead of the action itself. White Ignorance and Black Guilt explain (sufficiently or not) WHY white and black people behave in racially-motivated ways, but they do not define the behavior itself. THAT is the functional role of the word “racism” or “racist”. Using the case that Jack used to introduce the subject, Barack Obama may have been motivated by Black Guilt to react in the way that he did after the Henry Louis Gates “incident”, but “Black Guilt” does not in any way describe the reaction itself. The reaction itself is more adequately and accurately described by the very word Jack introduced his new terms to replace – “racist” (and that is the case whether you believe the action was racist or not – “racist” is the term to define the behavior either by inclusion or exclusion). So Glenn Beck’s usage of the term in reference to Barack Obama vis-a-vis the “incident” was not necessarily the damnable and small-minded offense that Kerwick went to such great length to paint it as. If someone asks, “was X behavior racist?” or “is Y person racist?” the proper answer is “yes” or “no”, not “X behavior was White Ignorance”. Following the “yes” or “no”, White Ignorance may be a perfectly suitable term to explain WHY X behavior was or was not racist, but the term by itself is does not perform the same function.
My secondary objection to Kerwick’s follow-up piece “A Response to Selwyn Duke”, as well as this piece, was/is the unbelievable, stupefying hubris shown by Mr. Kerwick in insisting that other writers reflect his value judgment of, and personal objection to, the word “racist” or “bigot” AND defer to his self-crafted terminology to replace it; as well as the stunningly condescending assertion that misunderstanding, ignorance, and inability to comprehend the subject matter are responsible for all of the disagreements with his analyses and proclamations. For daring to question the legitimacy of his terms and his moral or intellectual authority to insist on their universal acceptance and application, the ever-humble Mr. Kerwick penned the email which you can read at the link I posted earlier to the comments section of “A Response to Selwyn Duke” (my replies and his follow-ups are there as well, but one of my replies is apparently still in queue and hasn’t posted just yet so the continuity is off), which served as the reason for my tone at this article.
As a further point of clarification, I too do not deny the existence of “White Ignorance” and “Black Guilt” in a certain sense, though I do not believe in the universality of the motivations they entail, nor in the balkanizing implications of Mr. Kerwick’s concept of racial identity with its focus on “racial consciousness”. If Mr. Kerwick had introduced the terms and discussed them as independent, new pieces of language that serve to elucidate the motivations for racially-centric behavior, I probably would not even have bothered commenting. It is Mr. Kerwick’s insistence that these terms stand in place of other words that he wishes to scrub from the English vocabulary, not just in his own writing, but in that of others as well, to which I object.
>Barack Obama may have been motivated by Black Guilt to react in the way that he did after the Henry Louis Gates “incident”, but “Black Guilt” does not in any way describe the reaction itself. The reaction itself is more adequately and accurately described by the very word Jack introduced his new terms to replace – “racist” (and that is the case whether you believe the action was racist or not – “racist” is the term to define the behavior either by inclusion or exclusion).
*** I agree entirely on this point. Whatever motivated Obama to act the way he did, it was a clearly racist act. The motivation, in my opinion, regardless of what it is, does not lessen the need to identify the act itself in clear, direct terms.
I am similarly unconcerned with the motives of KKK members who do and say racist things as well.
This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t speculate about the social, political or economic underpinnings of racism to perhaps understand it more completely. That’s an interesting topic in its own right. But like I said before, that doesn’t mean that we can’t (or shouldn’t) use the word “racist” to describe something that is, in fact, racist.
We’re now at a different stage of race relations. Many decades ago, racial tolerance meant getting people to stop using insulting terms to describe a member of a different race. Now, sometimes it’s about getting people to refrain from attributing racism to a member of the other race (a sneaky method, since you get to cast yourself as the victim.)
It could be that I misunderstood some aspects of Dr. K.’s writing from the start (it wouldn’t be the first time). I thought, instead of proposing that fellow conservatives eradicate the term racism, (or maybe in addition to that) he was postulating what the world would be like if everyone stopped using the word.
Dr. Jackson, you say it would be tactically wrong to refrain from the word, because the left will use it anyway. But it seems to me that because obnoxious rap recording artists of color are today about the only ones using the “n” word, that they come off as uncivilized, unnurturing of their own children and women, and general a**holes (still a good word). The Richard Priors and Bill Cosbys are trying to stop them.
On the other hand, anyone who refrains from making an accusation, except in the most egregious violation, comes off as the gentleman and might be more persuasive as a result.
Doesn’t the preponderence of the word “racism” invite its use, though you are correct that sometimes it applies?
And although you’re not taking Glenn Beck to task, I sense that you are not ready to endorse his charactarization of Obama. Isn’t it more defensible to say “I wish the President had not spoken rashly about the Prof. Gates incident, because it doesn’t help things” rather than to say “he shows that he is racist.”
Lastly: I am interested in the psychological phenomenon “fundamental error of attribution” which may be interesting in light of all of this (though not particularly to anyone’s writing here). Does anyone know of any studies, in relation to perceptions of racism?
>Dr. Jackson, you say it would be tactically wrong to refrain from the word, because the left will use it anyway. But it seems to me that because obnoxious rap recording artists of color are today about the only ones using the “n” word, that they come off as uncivilized, unnurturing of their own children and women, and general a**holes (still a good word).
*** Calling someone the N-word is a slur, and an insult. It’s not descriptive of an action or behavior.
Calling someone a racist who makes decisions or takes actions on the basis if race is an accurate description of that act or philosophy.
There’s no comparison between the two words. You’re comparing apples to oranges by linking gratuitous racial sander to an accurate description of someone who acts or philosophizes on the basis of race. The only thing they have in common is that both are words in the English language that have ‘something’ to do with race.
Refraining from racial insults is not the same thing properly identifying a racist action by using the correct word “racist”. Ceding the use of that term to one side of the political spectrum makes no strategic or, in fact, common sense.
Thank you. So you reject the idea that “racism” has too many disparate and noncommensurable meanings to have any use, although, as we both observe, Dr. Kerwick’s thought process is very interesting.
I mention the “n” word because the “racism” can be an indictment of behavior or speech which someone has done plenty to deserve, or an evil slur that the speaker knows is false, or merely an error in judgment. So I think I am comparing oranges to tangerines.
Words do indeed fall into the category of general disapproval. I notice that no one complains when someone says the word “genius” is overused, but Mr. Mulligan considered Dr. Kerwick’s plan to revise the English language by deleting a couple of words to absolutely absurd. Maybe if Dr. K. had started out by saying that “these words are so charged and many-faceted that they often obscure rather than clarify what we mean so hold on a minute, let’s re-examine what we are saying” then there would have been more consensus.
I am wondering what would happen if high profile conservatives such as Beck and Limbaugh and maybe Severin would defend themselves against charges of racism, but not make charges of racism against anyone. Then the only people making “racism” accusations would be liberal blacks, and liberal whites doing the bidding of liberal blacks. And then wouldn’t it appear that they are a bunch of whiners? I don’t know the answer, nor am I presumptuous enough to suppose that someone needs my strategic expertise. I thought it was an interesting question.
Whereas now it may appear simply that there’s a verbal war.
I appreciate your inclusion of your taking on the far far right racists. Bravo.
If everyone were an intellectual then intellectually sound arguments would change the world, right?
> So you reject the idea that “racism” has too many disparate and noncommensurable meanings to have any use …
*** The fact that the word “racism” today has been misused for political reasons doesn’t render it “useless”, particularly when it’s used as a weapon by the Left to mean “I disagree with you and am going to politically attack you by charging ‘racism’”. It illustrates that the word needs to be stripped of its political baggage, not abandoned to the Left to continue to use as a club.
There are lots of other words that have become politicized: “patriotism”, “traitor”, “civil liberties”, “torture”, etc. We don’t abandon the notion of civil liberties because the Left wants to charge that warrantless wiretaps of foreign terrorists violates “our civil rights”. Why should we abandon the word “racist”?
The fact that someone wants to misuse a word means that we need continually, vocally, and loudly illustrate its misuse, not abandon the term.
>I mention the “n” word because the “racism” can be an indictment of behavior or speech which someone has done plenty to deserve, or an evil slur that the speaker knows is false, or merely an error in judgment. So I think I am comparing oranges to tangerines.
*** If a black person uses the N-word against another black person, he’s not a “racist” the way people who believe that “race matters” are truly racists. Rather, he’s slandering another person) or perhaps even using a bad word endearingly among friends, which is another thing all together!). This is not the same as believing that one race is superior to another race, or doing things for/against other people based on their race. That’s racism.
>I notice that no one complains when someone says the word “genius” is overused,
*** “Genius” is not an inherently slanderous term. Why would anyone object to it? Neither does it diminish the individual human being by calling something they do “genius”.
All words get overused to some extent (like “love” and “hate”). But no one says we need to find new words for them too.
This is all very simple in a fundamental way. People who object to calling racists “racists” generally don’t like confrontation. They don’t like to be thought of as judgmental or unkind. They think that everybody is fundamentally alike from a values basis, and what we need to do is seek understanding of our differences rather than confront these people.
Others, like me, believe that evil can and does exist (terrorists and people who deliberately kill innocent human life the two prime examples). I’m not afraid to point out a racist’s racism even if it makes other people uncomfortable to be around when I do it.
The only thing that is required of evil to succeed is for good men to do — or say — nothing.
Soft-selling “racism” because it’s politically incorrect, confrontational, because others are tying to muddy the waters and it will make people uncomfortable to point this out and correct it, are great examples of the kind of person I aspire not to be.
>I appreciate your inclusion of your taking on the far far right racists. Bravo.
*** A racist is a racist is a racist. No accolades are needed for acting in accordance with a set of values. If everyone adopted this philosophy, it would be far better than a planet full of “intellectuals”.
Dr. J,
The charge was not that people don’t object to the widespread use of the word genius, but that they do object, that no one considers the objection to be objectionable. The reason people feel that “genius” is overused doesn’t matter. My thought is only that, although Kerwick certainly knows he can’t wave a magic wand and remove “racism” and “bigot” from the dictionary, why should someone protest at the suggestion that it would be better if these words were not used? Words have a life span, and some (like “gay”) change. Some, like “forsooth” are forgotten. Some (like n****r) we become ashamed of.
To some people, “racism” is vitally necessary. To others, it’s murky and likely to unnecessarily escalate discord. I respect your view, but it’s not the only one.
The onus is on Kerwick to explain why the words are flawed. He did. Some readers do not believe he made the case successfully. Well and good. But I’m just saying I don’t understand someone making such a stink about the questions he raises.
ruminator: I’d be curious to know what your source is for believing that there is widespread objection to the use of the word “genius,” whether the objection is “objectionable” or not. Until you raised the point, I’d never given it a passing thought. That said, I think you’re mixing your opinion about a subject with an analysis of that subject, which is why you’ve raised this point in a discussion about the appropriateness of a word despite the politicization of it.
I meant something simpler than that: you’ve heard many times “the word genius is overused.” I have no source, other than my own experience. People think that when you call everyone who is above average a genius, the word loses its effect. In no sense is this matter on a par with the current discussion, in complexity or subject. It’s generally considered OK to talk about when and how words are used, what effect they have, and whether or not their use ought to be re-evaluated. So I think it was a mistake for someone (not you) to accuse the writer of such high-handed stuff when he’s just talking about words and their implications.
Well, everyone makes mistakes.
>People think that when you call everyone who is above average a genius, the word loses its effect.
*** This is true of any misue of any word in the english language. But that isn’t the issue under discussion. It’s the presumed need to abandon a perfectly good word because of its misuse, rather than revitalize it to restore its original meaning. Moreover, this is not an abstract discussion; it relates directly to how the word is used for political effect by the Left to intimidate dissent.
Given how the word is used in a real-world political setting, abandoning it cedes power to the Left. Revitalizing it (i.e. using it properly against real racists) blunts that micharacterization and returns meaning (and sanity) to the debate about racist actions.
These are the real “implication” of the issue, not a debate about semantics.
ruminator,
I’d respond since your objection seems to be mostly to my posting, but I think Phil’s responses have made the very same case I would have (and have been laboring to). I object not only to scrubbing the language of words deemed “bad” or “objectionable” or “controversial” by whatever subjective standard one applies (as well as Mr. Kerwick’s apparent belief that his criteria for scrubbing these words from the language are somehow not subjective, and in fact an appeal to a universal truth), but also to the replacements that Kerwick proposes, as they are not suitable replacements for the words he wishes to scrub (I discussed this several posts ago).