This comment is from CK MacLeod on Joanna Schroeder’s piece Racist Writings: Should Derbyshire and Weigel Be Fired?
I think you’re inching toward, without actually confronting, a multiculturalist double-think problem. Because this discussion is, or seemed to be, politically and socially exhausted, something “we” had all gotten past, many of its premises, even where they are paradoxical, are simply accepted without question. Yet their very non-questionability in turn provides an opportunity for individuals like Derbyshire to rise up and question them anyway, as infringements on his personal freedom to live his life as he rationally sees fit.
Many of us have learned and accepted the teaching that, as inheritors of a racist-sexist-classist culture, we will be to some degree inalienably racist, sexist, and classist, and regardless of where we happen to sit in relation to power. This goes crucially for those disadvantaged by inequities in power and privilege as well as for beneficiaries, the former having necessarily internalized many of the same prejudices, including towards themselves, and necessarily having been in this sense disfigured by the larger culture.
So, a Derbyshirist believes himself to be in possession of a kind of jiu-jitsu. Derbyshire himself famously copped to being a racist, but a “mild and tolerant” one. In short, he accepts the multiculturalist critique, the basis of so much consciousness-raising and self-criticism often delivered in the form of or place of punishment for offenders, and says, “OK, we live in a racist culture, or culture disfigured by a history of racism. This is how I choose to live in the bad world.” He makes matters worse for himself by attaching himself to a blatantly racialist pseudo-scientific discourse meant to reinforce the rationalism of this decision and the irrationality of trying, especially as an individual, to combat its supposedly real results in his daily life – or in his children’s daily lives. Yet there are few if any of us, black or white or (as we all really are) in between, who isn’t susceptible in some way to “skin color realism” of some type, based on a lifetime absorbing stereotypical images, reading or viewing stereotype-reinforcing news and statistics, and so on.
So, the question for Derbyshire as well as for Weigel – and for all of the rest of us – isn’t “Are you a racist?” According to the best anti-racist thinking, the statement “I am not a racist” is itself already a falsehood, always and without real exception. You therefore don’t need to wait for some “seriously racist shit” following the “but.” “I am not a racist, but…” is already seriously racist shit. The question is, “Given your and everyone else’s racist tendencies, what is the best way to cope privately and also to express oneself on the matter publicly?”
In my opinion Derbyshire seems to fail miserably and flagrantly on both counts, and Weigel obviously much less so. Few of us will end up Derbyshiring at such length, so publicly, and over such an extended period of time, but we can approach still approach his errors, or those of his defenders and of some of his accusers, with a bit of humility, a bit of “there but for the grace of God or dumb luck…”
Photo courtesy of Linda Cronin
About the Editors
I totally get the argument that racism still exists and still shapes everyone’s worldview to some degree. I understand the point that people who claim to be “not racist” often are quite racist and that many people are in denial about the continued effects of racism on our society. I see how some people claim racism is a thing of the past even when it isn’t. I’ve heard many times before that everyone is racist and that just when you think you’re not being racist is when you are being very racist.
What I still don’t get is how this line of thinking helps to improve the situation, even if it’s true. Here I’ve been assuming that society needs to make progress in decreasing racism by creating a society where racism is less common and/or less powerful. At the same time, I’m told that the idea of progress has largely been a myth. I shouldn’t put too much stock in anyone claiming that society has improved one bit. In one racism-awareness workshop I was told flat out not to raise the question of “how do we have progress on this issue?” because that was seen as a denial of the way that people were feeling. I was just supposed to understand without ever asking about practical solutions.
(I suspected in that particular workshop that the leaders in effect made their living pointing out racism. They are part of an incredibly durable anti-racism consulting industry, which is somewhat invested in the idea of racism never going away. If racism disappeared overnight, there would be all sorts of intellectuals and consultants thrown out of work.)
If there’s been any progress on this front, let’s look at how much and how it happened. If there has been no progress at all, then let’s hear why there hasn’t been despite all those decades of marching, protests, laws, sit-ins, court cases, etc. That suggests that the crusade against racism has just been a big waste of time, which is what racism-deniers say about current civil rights activism. Hardly an improvement.
I need help understanding how racism is to be undermined if we assume that everyone is always already racist. (I’m assuming that it’s still worthwhile to fight racism. That may be my own strange political bias that others don’t share.) Perhaps the message I’m supposed to get is to just give up whatever naïve idea I have that racism can be reduced, that progress isn’t possible. That sounds just as regressive as people who say that racism is gone.
If saying “I want to fight racism” or “racism is bad” is inherently racist, then we can’t ever criticize anyone for failing to fight racism. If the message is that it’s here to stay, then we may as well look at it like gravity. Just accept it as permanent.
Thanks for saving me a reply. Everyone’s a racist. People are going to be biased. I can stop being concerned. Problem solved. Next issue…
Count me in as well as not supporting the use of the mathematical truism that everyone possesses impurities as a means for bridging divides or anything else of value.
What is the point of such rhetoric?
When someone says to me: I am not a racist – and most of what they do and say supports that statement – there is an underlying assumption that it is not a 100% truism, though I’m certainly not going to be an ass about it and reply with: Yes you are a racist! It’s mathematically impossible for you not to be a racist!
What I’m probably going to reply with is: you’re a good person. We need more like you. I want to be more like you.
As a person of color, I am always wary of anyone who feels the need to state they are not a racist.
If you’re not a racist, everyone will know – you don’t have to say it.