On the Words of Racism
A Primer for Discussion
I want to begin this post by acknowledging that nothing I am saying is innovation, or even new-ish. And yet, I still see so much misunderstanding among people who converse about racism, and so much of it stems from things that could be very simply clarified. Those clarifications are what I want to address here.
Some concepts and dynamics may also apply to conversations about classism, sexism, ableism, hetero-cissexism, speciesism, and other forms of discrimination.
Two Meanings: Systemic & Individual
The most important point I know in conversations about racism is to define what racism is. This may seem obvious, but most of the conversations I see about racism completely forego this helpful step. Clarifying the topic of discussion is much harder to do once the discussion is under way.
The most important point I know in defining racism is that the word is used to mean two different things. Technically, of course, it is used to mean many things, but to generalize the many definitions into the most common, larger groupings, ‘Racism’ means either A) the system of race-based discrimination, or B) the individual actions of race-based discrimination. People who use the word “racism” either way often argue that their definition is the correct one. Whether or not they are right, huge swaths of people use the word differently. Let’s look at each use more specifically.
The System
The systemic meaning of racism is often more or less synonymous with the phrase White supremacy. This meaning refers to the discrimination imposed on the globe by colonizers who used pseudoscience to separate humans based primarily on skin tone and geographical origin, and which has evolved through imperialism, colonialism, slavery, the Jim Crow era, militarized policing, and mass incarceration.
This is the meaning used by people who argue there is no reverse-racism. To understand this, think of the phrase “reverse White supremacy.” NonWhite supremacy has not happened because that would mean nonWhite folk would have more power globally over White people, which is not the case (though some folk will argue against even this). The systemic meaning of racism is most often used by people who believe that systemic racism, or White supremacy, still exists today. Most historians or researchers of racism usually use the systemic definition, rather than that of individual actions. (This could conceivably vary for social psychologists studying race-based prejudice, which is more or less synonymous with the individual definition of racism, examined below.)
Also very importantly, system-viewers are more prone to think that, while all racism is bad, not all race-based discrimination is bad. Some things that take race into account may be good. We will return to this when we look at affirmative action, reparations, and inclusiveness.
Finally, while most system-viewers agree that anti-White discrimination is also bad, they are less afraid of it, because there is not a system of power built on it. They believe that increases in White Supremacy are more likely than an entire cultural reversal into what some have deemed “White Genocide.” For this reason, system-viewers tend to believe in extra precautions to protect people of color, to prevent from reverting to cultural norms. Hate crime legislation is one example of this.
Individual Actions
The individual definition of racism is typically used by folk who believe that the global system of racism, or White supremacy, has ended, and that we currently live in a post-racial society, where race is not used to oppress any group. In a post-racial society, reverse-racism exists in that a person of color can act against a White person based on prejudice against White people, but not that people of color have taken over and globally dominated White folk (though again, some people argue they have). Individual-viewers tend to believe that any race-based discrimination is bad. (However, again, those who argue that people of color have now come to dominate White people, want more race-based discrimination in favor of White people to “re-level” the playing field.)
Who & What, Then, Are Racist?
The two definitions determine different criteria for what it means to be racist.
Under the systemic view of racism, something can only be racist if it negatively, and disproportionately, influences people of color. In other words, something is racist when it upholds White supremacy. A person of color acting on racial prejudice against a White person would be committing race-based discrimination, but not an act of racism, as that act does not enforce White supremacy. Alternatively, some bad event that affects all races equally would not be racist, because it does not disproportionately hurt people of color, and so does not uphold White supremacy.
Motivation is not always relevant. Importantly, if an action disproportionately hurts people of color for a reason other than their race (for instance, it happens to hurt lower-income people from a particular area), it is still racist, because it still upholds White supremacy, by nature of having disproportionately affected people of color, even if that was not the motivation. This is called the principle of Impact Over Intent.
An example of this I was recently discussing with family members is if a group of employers make hiring decisions, in part, because they do not like the smell of the foreign food some prospective employees might bring into the office. The employers may even choose a different candidate of the same race who does not bring that food into the office, and never actively consider the race of either candidate. Still, this hiring practice normalizes and advantages White culture, and “others” and disadvantages cultures of color, so this practice upholds White supremacy. Notice that in this example, it does not even matter which person is which race. It could be a White prospective employee bringing in the foreign food. The point here is that the motivation is not being accused of being racist as much as the outcome of the behavior, which is a devaluing of cultures of color. The motivation is considered racist insofar as it does not take into account the discrepancy in outcome. In this way, no one has to have explicitly racist intentions to unintentionally support White supremacy.
It is important to note here that for system-viewers, the individual definition of racism is considered racist because it implicitly denies, or at least downplays, the system of White supremacy and its existence, which implicitly supports it. For people who believe that White supremacy still exists, it matters little whether someone argues that White supremacy is not a problem because it does not exist, or because they actually want White supremacy. Both people argue that White supremacy is not a problem, which, if you believe that White supremacy exists, upholds White supremacy by telling people not to do anything about it. Why would anyone take action against something that does not exist?
Another thing that I think is important to address here: Many people who use the word racism to mean White supremacy often argue that people of color cannot be racist. While this particular wording is incorrect, they mean that people of color cannot use White supremacy against White people. People of color can still be racist, insofar as they, too, can uphold White supremacy against themselves and other people of color. This is called internalized racism. Examples of this include a person of color who still prefers to hire White people, or arrest other people of color, or one nonWhite person discriminating against a different nonWhite race, or even a person of color who is ashamed of their own self. (One prominent example is that the New Black Panther Party, an entirely different entity from the original Black Panther Party, is listed as an anti-Jewish extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center; the original BPP opposes them.)
Under the individual understanding of racism, anything is racist if it discriminates based on race. Simple. This type of discrimination can also be internalized, and under this definition, includes a White person who racially discriminates against White people. People who believe in the systemic definition of racism would call this a reflection of White guilt, rather than internalized racism. (We will return to White guilt later).
What About Conscious/Unconscious? Explicit/Implicit?
Either definition of racism can apply to conscious or unconscious racism, explicit or implicit racism. One person can explicitly believe that one race is better than the other, or not believe that but still have unconscious fears about other races that causes the person to discriminate against them, and thereby uphold White supremacy.
Importantly, the bigger you think the system of White supremacy is, the more people you think are racist. If you believe that White supremacy has embedded itself into the global culture, then you probably believe that everyone who is part of that culture is at least somewhat implicitly racist, insofar as they unconsciously uphold White supremacy. If you believe that White supremacy is the default culture, then whoever fights for the status quo is racist, insofar as they fight for a default that upholds White supremacy. If you believe that we, as a society, have gotten rid of White supremacy, then you probably believe that most people are not racist at all. This brings me to the next category.
Blindness* vs Consciousness: All/Black Lives Matter
The phrase color-blindness is used by some as a positive, and some as a negative. This, too, mostly depends on whether the speaker believes that White supremacy still exists. Most people who believe that White supremacy has ended look at color-blindness as a virtue. People who view themselves as color-blind believe they have rooted out the mechanism by which racism occurs. The next step is to look out for anyone who has not similarly made race invisible to themselves. To individual-viewers, the fight against racism is the fight against anyone who sees race. People who still see race are either themselves engaging in racism, or they are race-baiting, making something about race when it is not. For many individual-viewers, race-baiting is as stigmatized and racist as racism is for system-viewers.
Most people who believe that White supremacy still exists look at color-blindness as a denial of responsibility. For system-viewers, the degree to which something is not about race for White people, is a demonstration of its being about race, insofar as people of color do not have the luxury (or privilege), of avoiding race and racism in the same way. Refusing to see race is a system of criteria-erasure. Without addressing widespread unconscious racism, as well as the racist systems institutionalized in government, business, et cetera, color-blindness erases the criteria by which restorative justice may occur. System-viewers argue that something that is about race needs to be explicitly addressed, or the problem of racism will never be solved. They therefore practice race-consciousness, rather than color-blindness. This is demonstrated in the phrase “Black Lives Matter.”
If you believe that Black lives are not getting equal opportunity, this probably seems like a reasonable statement to make, in the effort to reinforce the notion that they should get equal opportunity. If you believe that people mostly have equal opportunity already, then the statement probably sounds like racially-based favoritism, or racism. This is why individual-viewers tend to respond with the phrase “All Lives Matter,” and why they tend not to appreciate the Black Lives Matter movement.
If you do believe the phrase “Black Lives Matter” expresses favoritism or race-baiting, and that we already have equal opportunity, then you probably believe that people of color, when they complain about racism, are manipulating a situation for their benefit. Indiviual-viewers do not necessarily think people of color do this as a conscious strategy. Often, they believe that people of color have been sold a narrative of victimhood, partly because the narrative is historically true, and partly because that narrative has in fact worked to convince others to compensate for injustice. This response, they argue, has created an entitlement, or welfare mentality.
Affirmative Action, Reparations, & Inclusiveness
Our views on White supremacy will influence our views on what to do about it. The more destructive we think it is, the bigger actions we think we need to take. Also importantly, the more recent/current we think White supremacy is, the more explicitly we need to address it.
Individual-viewers believe that affirmative action and reparations are racist, as they discriminate based on race. System-viewers believe that affirmative action and reparations are racially discriminatory, but not racist, because they do not uphold White supremacy, but rather, mean to counter it. This method of racial discrimination would not be considered bad, because it intends to compensate for an injustice. And because the injustice took race into account, the compensation must therefore do the same.
I would like to draw an important distinction here between helping people of color and hurting White people. As a group, system-viewers call for compensation by helping people of color, but not typically for hurting White people. In emotional rhetoric, some have certainly said things like, “I think we should round up all the White people and [XYZ] so they know what it feels like.” While rhetoric like this is certainly hurtful, this has never been a serious consideration of the anti-racist movement. Individual-viewers, on the other hand, tend to look at helping people of color as inherently hurting White people, by arguing, for example, that affirmative action unfairly disadvantages White people’s employment opportunities, and that emotional calls to [XYZ] White people are just as problematic as calling those things for folk of color.
Another example of race-based discrimination typically considered helpful, or compensatory, by system-viewers is inclusiveness, or inclusion. Inclusiveness evolved out of diversity, which evolved out of tolerance. Tolerance is about allowing for difference when it announces itself. Diversity is about ensuring difference is present. And inclusiveness is about increased accountability to those who are different, even when the differences may be hidden (or closeted). An inclusive space generally does more than a diverse space to ensure that the experiences of those who differ are safe and welcoming. One workplace trainer writes, “Diversity is what you have. Inclusion is what you do.” Sometimes, the space’s diversity itself is exploitative, in that it uses those who are different to make the providers of that space seem noble. Some colleges and businesses have been accused of using their affirmative action policies in this way.
In this newly created space, we are talking about differences from those who have supremacy. If you believe that White supremacy does not exist, then you likely believe that no one needs to give any special attention to ensuring that the experiences of people of color in that space are safe and welcoming, and that to do so would be racist, because it discriminates based on race. If you believe that the default culture is one of White supremacy, then you likely believe that extra steps need to be taken to ensure that a space does not default to racist habits that oppress people of color, and that one way to do this is to ensure that people of color are included in the space, to ensure their input and perspectives.
Safe Space, Trigger Warnings, & Micro-Aggressions
A space that takes these inclusive efforts, and is careful about creating a new culture that does not default to a culture of supremacy, is a safe space. Anytime we enter into a safe space, we let our guards down more than we usually do. When we let our guards down, we tend to react more sensitively. Because of this, when we are in a safe space, and someone is about to bring up something upsetting, it is sometimes customary to offer a trigger warning. This says to everyone in the safe space, “This may hurt, and I do not want to catch you off-guard.”
Crucially, I think it is often assumed what the purpose of a safe space is, but they can be used many different ways. Some people might want a space away from a default culture of supremacy in order to recover, heal, and process. Some people may want to regroup, and talk strategically about what to do once they return to the outside world. In these ways, safe spaces can be used to strengthen people’s resilience in the face of triggers and oppressions. The primary argument against safe spaces is that they coddle its members, and increase sensitivity to the world around them, thus disempowering them by making them more fragile. It is important to understand that this effect is possible, but not a necessary outcome.
Partly because of an increased awareness of how the cultures of supremacy perpetuate themselves, the concept of micro-agressions grew in popular culture. Importantly, the phrase “micro-agression” was in part intended to help communication, as it was meant to be less alienating than simply calling someone “racist.” The intention of the phrase was to help open conversation. Unfortunately, it seems to have mostly not worked, and has already fallen out of popular use. I personally believe the phrase “micro-agression” backfired the way it did partly because we simply replaced a designation for the same conversation-closing practice of invalidating someone’s perspective. But more on my beliefs later.
Privilege, Guilt, & Paternalism
If you believe that White supremacy is a current issue, then you believe that White people are benefitting at the expense of people of color. The benefits of any system of discrimination are called privilege. Under White supremacy, the benefits are called White privilege.
White guilt is thought to be problematic by people who use both definitions of racism. White individual-viewers tend not to feel guilt, and argue that White folk should not feel guilt, partly because they tend to believe that White supremacy is over, so there is less to feel guilty about. White system-viewers, partly because they tend to believe that White supremacy still exists, may feel guilty about benefiting from a system that oppresses others. In this way, White guilt is a specific example of survivor guilt, in this case, the guilt of surviving White supremacy. (Obviously, survival here means more than simply continuing to exist.)
Generally, however, system-viewers agree that centering guilt can be problematic, because it encourages people to work to make themselves feel better, rather than to directly address injustice. Guilt may serve as a useful signal, but when anti-racism work is made to be about alleviating White guilt, rather than listening to the needs of people of color, it continues to prioritize White people over people of color.
On the other hand, individual-viewers tend to argue that any work on the part of White folk to help people of color ends up perpetuating racism insofar as it perpetuates paternalism and dependence. They believe that, because people of color can better their situations on their own (because White supremacy has ended), help from White people inherently belittles and condescends people of color. It is important to note that this is a valid critique, and some White people trying to help people of color do enact the White savior narrative. It is also important to note that people of color resoundingly reject this kind of help. White people making decisions for and holding power over people of color still upholds White supremacy, however well-intentioned those White people are. More than help, people of color want self-determination, or sovereignty, goals that are hindered by systemic racism. Similarly, folk of color reject the narrative of victimhood in favor of a narrative of resilience, as they continue to survive and resist all manners of oppression.
System-viewers of all races also tend to acknowledge that dismantling White supremacy helps everyone, and moves toward collective liberation. They tend to agree that collective liberation is among the more constructive motivations, and prefer this to paternalistic racism. This preference is perhaps best expressed by the quotation, “If you have come here to help me, you are wasting our time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” (This quotation is credited to Australian aboriginal activists, and is now used by activists of many causes, worldwide.)
What I Believe
I do not want to hide or sneakily impose my views on you, the reader. I believe that White supremacy is current, pervasive, and powerfully destructive. I personally use the word racism to refer to that system, though I make sure to clarify what I and others mean when we discuss it. I believe that the system of racism, or White supremacy, has evolved through imperialism, colonialism, slavery, the Jim Crow era, militarized policing, and mass incarceration. And I believe that Michelle Alexander covers that evolution beautifully in The New Jim Crow.
I believe that we are all racist, even people of color, insofar as we all internalize and uphold this system, however unconsciously. And I believe that we are all hurt by White supremacy, even White people, insofar as division from each other and from our histories and cultures hurts us all. To clarify, I do not believe that White folk are oppressed by White supremacy on the basis of our being White, or that folk of color use White supremacy against White folk.
All that said, I actually try to avoid using the word “racist” altogether, even though I use the words “racism” and “White supremacy.” Partly, this is because the word “racist” tends to confuse others even more than the word “racism.” Even within either definition, what counts as “racist” will differ between people. Partly, I think the question of who or what is racist focuses too much on diagnosis (what is wrong), and not enough on treatment (what to do about it). Partly, and especially as it is applied to people, I find the question much too static. A person might have many implicitly racist views in one area but less in another. Two people may be implicitly racist to different degrees, or explicitly racist to different degrees. A person might be racist now but less later, or vice versa. One prominent example of this is Nathan Bedford Forrest, the founder and first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, who later renounced the KKK and worked for racial reconciliation.
We do not have to dismiss all these considerations of nuance and degree when asking whether something is racist, but I believe that we often do. And even if the person using the term considers all these things, the person hearing the term may not. This includes system-viewers and individual-viewers, liberals and conservatives, people of color and Whites, et cetera. This to me is the most important reason I avoid the term “racist”: I believe it shuts down conversations even more than the words “racism” and “White supremacy.” By stigmatizing racist people in the way we have, we have made it hard to discuss the implicit racism we all carry, because we think only bad people can hold racism in their hearts. Some people say that implicit racism is worse than explicit racism. I think this is mostly because we have not yet learned to communicate as well as we have learned to stigmatize. We will not be shamed into the revolution. But neither will we run into it, fleeing from shame.
We have elevated the question, “Is this person or thing racist?” to sacred status, such that we castigate and/or ostracize (“call out”) rather than empathize and open up to (“call in”). Just as some people use their moral beliefs to divide, so have we. I believe that partly, we have done this because we care so much about helping others who are hurt, and partly, because we are reacting from the fear and shame of our own implicit, internalized racism. I believe that the more we accept that we ourselves are racist, and have been socialized to uphold White supremacy, the less reactive, and more constructive, we tend to be. I believe the more we fear our own racism, the angrier we tend to be about seeing it elsewhere. This, of course, alienates most of the people we are trying to reach out to.
I personally much prefer the questions, “How does this hurt one group over another, or otherwise enforce supremacy? What can I do about it?” It is true these questions can be asked with as much problematic framing as other questions, but they at least move from binary toward nuance, and from diagnosis to treatment. The change in phrasing is a (gentle) nudge toward a solutions-focused approach.
When I teach activist-education, I tell students: Imagine that a loved one who disagrees with you about your cause is having second thoughts, and is considering your perspective. How does this person think of you? Are you the kind of person they can turn to about their self-doubts and still feel safe? Or the kind of person that will dismiss their concerns, their feelings, their experience, attack them for their missteps? I believe that largely, our loved ones fear us. And this devastates me. I believe that fulfilling relationships, even with people whose ideas and behaviors we protest, is central to social justice.
Finally, I believe that to unify, we must talk about how we are divided. I believe this means that to dismantle racism, we must talk about race and White supremacy. I believe that we must do so with as much love and understanding as possible. I believe that love and understanding includes self-love and self-understanding, and that these include balancing self-care with self-accountability. And I believe that more than feel-good nicety, love is a steadfast commitment.
Among the many things this article does not do is prove White supremacy’s existence. I believe this is proved by a great body of other work and personal experience (the plural of anecdote is data). Alas, I also believe that we need to prove its existence over and over again, to each and every individual person for that work to mean what it can mean. I do not believe that this article will make these conversations easy. I hope that this article will help.
What are you views? What words do you use? What questions do you think are most constructive? To what degree do you believe White supremacy is still a problem, if at all? What ways can we work toward racial harmony and reconciliation? What evidence do you have for your responses? What people have you spoken with about this, and how do those conversations go?
If you believe that I have misrepresented something, please, hold me to account. I ask that you do so with as much love as you can muster. And with as much love as I can, I will listen to you.
- On the word “Color-Blindness”: It is important to note that people who use either definition of racism may look negatively at the use of the word “blind”, on the basis that it feeds into ableism, the discrimination against people who are disabled. This tends to be the folk who use racism to mean White supremacy, partly because they are more likely to believe in another systemic discrimination, and partly because they want to critique the idea of color-blindness without stigmatizing actually being blind. The people who look at color-blindness as a virtue tend to have less issue with associating the word “blind” with noble aspirations.
- If you are considering leaving a violent extremist group, please reach out to Life After Hate here: http://www.exitusa.org/
