Bigotry is the Man Behind the Curtain of Racism
Racism represents the abandonment of humanity, it is a virus that destroys, but it (as a term) has become problematic. Racists and apologists have attempted to derail conversations around structural-racism by claiming and feigning reverse-racism — diverting conversation and obscuring the larger issue that bigotry is an over-arching theme; the man behind the curtain of racism.
Racialism: a pejorative agenda driven by a belief that one group (through association) is inherently superior or inferior to an other, and that membership of that group, through definition, lends an individual (or group) to be marginalized, discriminated, stigmatized, and or demonized for possession of traits (or lack thereof). Racism requires structural-power to be effective, otherwise we are really talking about racial bias, which is akin to broader themes within bigotry. Racial bias is available regardless of one’s stratification, and bigotry can be present regardless of qualifiers, but racism generally falls into pre-existing patterns. Those patterns can be the cause of stagnant debate and are often riddled with logical-fallacies.
A major issue with tackling racism is that we (collectively) can be myopic and preloaded when it comes to identifying it— this means the action of exploring concepts related to racism can exist in the binary; racist or not /can be racist or cannot be racist. It is inherently flawed because it appears reductive in nature. In the simplest of terms it means the moment we start talking about race through these mechanisms we lose objectivity, because we take on a (sometimes forced) binary perspective.
Some great work is being done to identify the complex dimensions of racism; illustrating, for instance, that a person can be racist and still marry a person of color, in the same way a person can be a misogynist and still have a female partner, or have daughters.
When meeting a person embodying racism, it is a dimensional experience — humans are complex and prone toward contradictions. It is possible to interact with a person who holds racists beliefs yet simultaneously aligns with us on other matters of morality or ethics. This contradiction can be disarming as much as it can be disgusting. But racism isn’t a singular dimension in and of itself, and while its individual etiology may be complex the bracket within which racism resides is actually quite simple.
Racism is a consequence of interacting with a bigot at a specific given moment. Racism is the manifestation of a deeper theme that centers around bigotry.
It is subjectively true to experience racism, but it is objectively more true to witness bigotry — for the simple reason that racism does not exist within a vacuum; it is accompanied by a myriad of other isms, phobias, and systems.
Bigotry is a fractal to the binary of racism. There is power in challenging that schema; there is unity that relates directly to humanity, because bigotry is the obstinate position of being unwilling to accept a spectrum of information that contradicts ones own view. While racist beliefs can be effectively challenged by entering into debate, and through actions like social and interpersonal exposure, it takes a willingness on the part of the individual to effect change — this is far less likely when entrenched bigotry is at play.
Racism is awkward, we might observe a racist action but not see it being comprehensively or universally enacted by that person. We might meet the racist with minority friends, or neighbors, or cohorts that “are ok” — and we might balk at the contradiction, observe a hypocrite and think they are just biding their time, or hiding their prejudices, or feel weak, but really we are witnessing an aspect of bigotry, their racism is a facet of a larger ill, and we should call it such.
The syntax Racist Bigot exists because it is correct. Racist bigot, sexist bigot, homophobic bigot, and so on — these are correct because they acknowledge the overarching reality that bigotry is the driving force. Bigotry is universal, it is applicable to all, and it has a much weaker counter argument than race: it doesn’t require power, only prejudice and an obstinate persona.
In challenging bigotry we adopt the position of advocating for the equality of the entire human race, and for logic. We make the motion to accept our inherent variations as the norm within the human condition. We accept them as the fabric of humanity.
Bigotry is closely related to prejudice, and that is how we generally apply it within our lexicon. We understand bigotry as a superior term for encapsulating issues and tensions relating to isms and phobias than their individual specifiers; it removes the isolation of the individual’s prejudice from within their personhood, expanding it toward group dynamics and larger themes of oppression.
This is an important step in challenging racism, because it asks the individual to consider their thoughts/actions/behaviors within a social context — that we contribute toward greater themes of power and oppression, even though we may feel that we individually lack the necessary power to effect change. These themes usually present themselves at the center of racism and bigotry. Power /force /struggle /oppression.
In using bigotry as a term to address thematic-division and racism we speak to a collective power of humanity. We are less likely to fall into the conscious (and unconscious) cultural scripting that can undermine the challenging of racism — meaning that decrying and giving someone ‘back’ their racism while challenging them on themes of obstinance and bigotry is an action of making them do the work. It is highlighting the inherent ignorance and intellectual dishonesty present within racism. Bigotry is the lack of intellectual curiosity and competency. Engaging with racists on themes of race walks into the mire of their entrenched ideals, but engaging their ignorance and bigotry challenges the intellectual dishonesty, and their self-deception.
That is in no way to diminish the destructive legacy of racism, or the institutionalized bias that eats away at the notion of self for ethnic groups — specific racial myths have to be debunked, and are dangerously toxic as long as they exist.
If we are able to collectively challenge racism along with all discrimination (and aggression) under the umbrella-label of bigotry it empowers and advocates for all of us, as a collective — by acknowledging and celebrating the differences within humanity as integral to humanness we observe that it is all we are, together. The action of racism and bigotry then becomes an attack on humanity as a whole, rather than individual groups. For some time society has attempted to ‘tolerate’ differences, as if a cease-fire would suffice and lead to inclusion and acceptance. Tolerance can be a shield for bigotry, because it provides passivity rather than being a change-agent. This has not worked because it does not address the complex experiences and narratives of marginalized groups, not in a way that addresses the need for systemic change.
In many senses intersectionality seeks to address these themes from within, whereas challenging bigotry within a broader field of discourse brings us into exploring how we attend to those who stand in opposition to themes emerging from intersectionality, and asks the question “what lies beyond tolerance for humanity”.
