Defining Racism

Racism’s sinister word games: 
What a white-supremacist talking point tells us about modern politics

Social Justice and Racism

A couple of weeks ago we were talking about social justice and what it means. During the discussion the hackles of a conservative in the group went up. He pointed out that justice means many things to many people and what we were talking about should not be applied, because it might not be his definition. I don't want to imply that the conservative is a racist. I don't know that, but his argument is strikingly similar to the argument used by Pat Goodwin in an interview with a reporter from the Guardian.

"Pat Godwin, president of Selma, Alabama’s United Daughters of the Confederacy, on the question of whether viewers are right to assume Godwin’s expressed views are racist. Godwin replies, “Well, you have to define ‘racist’ to me. What is a racist?”

Rhetoric as Deflection

Her comment was meant to deflect. It was rhetorical. It was meant to take the onus off herself and her group and justify her stance. The conservative in our discussion group was doing the same. He was trying to redirect and scuttle the discussion by implying there can be no social justice because it means something different to everybody. Is his alternative chaos?


The focus of the discussion was well defined. The parameters were clear. We were talking about Jesus and social justice. Specifically, we talked about what Jesus had to say about social justice in Matthew 25, verses 31-46. Social justice in this context is clear. Christians are to come down on the side of the poor and oppressed. They are to be welcoming of strangers. They are to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. They are to minister to the needs of the sick and the prisoners. It seems clear that you cannot...as a Christian...minister only to your needs. There is a greater good, and we're supposed to be a part of it.

Specifically Defined

Aaron Hanlon's Article in Salon.com points out the only way to counter rhetorical arguments like Goodwin's is with a historical perspective. 

 It’s important we understand such rhetorical tactics not simply as forms of racism, but as part of an important history that parallels, and lives symbiotically off of, the history of racism: the history of denying the existence of racism. Whether it’s borrowing the multiculturalist language of discrimination in accusations of “reverse-racism,” or expropriating the term “racist” as a symbol of white pride, the perpetrators subject themselves to a double-bind: They respect the idea of race-based discrimination when they themselves feel embattled or diminished as whites, but deny the same when the victims of discrimination are minorities.“Define racism” is not an easy prompt with an easy answer, but we do have answers much better developed than Godwin’s opinion-based approach to the question. If we historicize racism, rather than treating it as abstraction or opinion, we find that racism in the U.S. is not just discrimination in general, but a history of a dominant class of European whites subjecting minorities by means of things like the theft of land, the destruction of native populations, slavery, internment, Jim Crow, voting restrictions, restrictions on access to education and home ownership, and hurtful or defamatory portrayals in entertainment and media.

It doesn't matter if you can't change Pat Godwin's mind. That's on her. It does matter that more people discover what racism is all about so a change can come about. There is more to this life than our own self interest. We can't change the past, but we can become aware and steadfast for a better future based on social justice.

Racism in My Community

Chieftains and Warriors

I live in the bluest of blue states. Perhaps this is up north hypocrisy.

There's a big debate going on in my community about the mascots used for the athletic teams of the town's two high schools. One calls itself the Chieftains and the other the Warriors. The concern is the racist overtones of the two mascots and message they convey about our community's attitudes. The argument against changing the names goes along the lines of keeping tradition. "They're just names. Changing the mascots and the names will cost $100,000! There's no harm meant. One resident said that this is load of PC crap. If the majority is okay with these names, it's okay."

The names and the mascots aren't the only issue. The name of one of the student newspapers is the Powwow. The student cheering sections are called The Tribe and The Reservation. The Mascot for the Chieftains depicts a Plains Indian in full headdress. It's an image that Native Americans find offensive.

Stereotypes - Racism

Here's a definition of racism from Merriam-Webster:

1:  a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2:  racial prejudice or discrimination

Racism goes beyond the definition. It is evident in the language children are using on a daily basis. And, it isn't only white children. Racist language is used daily on our playgrounds. It is a form of bullying. Lola Okolosie, an English Teacher and writer in Great Britain, wrote about racism on the playground.

How white, black and brown students learn the language of racist bullying

She points out that "Children are bombarded with racist messages in the media and public debate. It's no wonder this has reached the playground." The words we use have an effect, especially when used to categorize and demean. We are teaching our children intolerance.

The Business Insider published an article last year, "11 Racist And Offensive Phrases That People Still Use All The Time." Among those words was "uppity." the example used was in reference to disparaging remarks made against Michele Obama.  

A couple years ago, Rush Limbaugh pontificated that a NASCAR audience booed Michelle Obama because she exhibited "uppity-ism." Glenn Beck even defended him, citing the First Lady's love of arugula. During segregation, Southerners used "uppity" to describe blacks who didn't know their socioeconomic place. Originally, the term started within the black community, but the racists adopted it pretty quickly.

But what about mascots? There's an enlightening essay on the CNN Website by Simon Moya- Smith titled, Native Americans: We're not your mascots. In the essay Moya-Smith says words like brave and warrior are not racial slurs, but that misses the point. "When the status of a Native American is demoted to that of a caricature, we are objectified and diminished as a people. We become entertainment, not fellow citizens. How are you supposed to take me seriously if all you see is the stereotypical image of the Hollywood or sports mascot Indian?"

What is most disturbing is the comment from a parent who excused racism because of traditions and because the majority seems to be in favor of keeping the mascots. What is he saying? Is it okay to propagate racism because we've doing it for a long time? Because it is a tradition? To him, and others like him, the opinions of the minority who are offended by the terms used don't matter. If you take his argument back to the time of Jim Crow, the lynchings of that period were justified because it was the prevailing viewpoint of the majority. A recent study found that 4,000 people were lynched in the South between 1877 and 1950. The reasons for the lynchings included political activism and testifying in court. The victims were "uppity." Lynchings continued in this country into the 1960's and not just in the south.

History of Lynchings in the South Documents Nearly 4,000 Names

Learning From Our Mistakes

What we teach our children is important. It shapes our future. When I was in high school we studied the civil rights movement. We read and discussed books like "To Kill a Mockingbird,","Native Son," and "A Raisin in the Sun." The hope was that we would expand our understanding of others and become well-rounded citizens. I'm wondering if that happens anymore. What we have here is a learning opportunity. What better place than in school. We cannot undo what we've done, but we can move forward and try to get it right from this point on.

Pew Reports on the Widening Political Divide

Pew Research is reporting the partisan divide is the widest it has been in 20 years. Driving the division is politics. From what I've seen in the research it seems the Republicans have become more rigid.

Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama YearsTrends in American Values: 1987-2012


NPR on All Things Considered  gave three examples from the Pew Research Center on how things have changed since 1987.

 "There needs to be stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment": In 2012, 93 percent of Democrats agreed with that. 47 percent of Republicans agreed. In 1992, those numbers were 93 percent and 86 percent.  Republicans had a 39 point shift.

"Labor unions are necessary to protect the working person": In 2012, 82 percent of Democrats agreed; 43 percent of Republicans agreed. In 1987, those numbers were 76 and 58.  Republicans had a 15 point shift.


"Government regulation of business usually does more harm than good": In 2012, 41 percent of Democrats agreed, while 76 percent of Republicans agreed. Those numbers were 50 and 61 in 1987.  Republicans had a 15 point shift.



Wisconsinites 'Reach Out' To Heal Partisan Divide

Political polarization is blamed for the gridlock in Washington.  The same issue has deeply divided Wisconsin as they head into their recall of Governor Scott Walker Tuesday.  Is there any hope of breaking this self-destructive trend? There is is when individuals leave their political parties behind. There was another report on All Things Considered about two Wisconsin couples who have gone out of their way to discuss issues rationally.  The group has grown into Reach Out Wisconsin with 30 to 40 people meeting. They hope the meetings will help Wisconsinites move on after the election.


There was a story a couple of weeks ago about partisan politics and the Negro River in Illinois. On one side a group that wanted to rename the river calling it demeaning and racist. On the other more conservative individuals calling the drive to change the name another example of political correctness run amok. The two sides even had dueling Facebook pages with all sorts of insults being hurled back and forth. That is, until the leaders of the two sides started talking with each other. The insults came down off the sites. The argument became more respectful. Here are links to the two Facebook pages.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/adamscreek/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/176640022437400/
The group opposed to the change still can't quite let go but, the worst postings have come down.
Compromise can be found. In your face attitudes have to be set aside. The people near Negro Creek and Wisconsin are proving it.