“And [God] made from one every nation of people to
live on all the face of the earth…” (St. Paul at Athens in Acts
17:26).
Merriam-Webster
Dictionary (MWD) recently received a letter by a Kennedy Mitchum, objecting
that the dictionary definition of “racism” needs to be expanded to include a systematic
aspect because, as she said, “prejudice combined with social and institutional
power…is a system of advantage based on skin color.”[2] She also recalled examples from her own experiences,
stating for example that at Drake University she faced “microaggressions
[because] she was surrounded by so many white people who didn’t acknowledge
her presence [and] questioned her ability.” Some even “disagreed” with her.[3]
In reply, Editor at Large Peter
Skolowski said in an interview that they are now working to revise the entry
which, at present, defines racism as “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.”[4] He further said, “this entry has not been
revised in decades…While our focus will…be on reflecting the real world usage
of the world and not on promoting any particular viewpoint, we have concluded
that omitting any mention of the systematic aspects of racism promotes a
certain viewpoint itself.”[5]
For several reasons, I find specifics
of the above account to be deeply problematic to any agenda seeking to resolve racism. Firstly, Kennedy both assumed the motives of
her classmates and attacked their moral character and intellectual acuity; neither
of which she confirmed. Virtually all
people at times have experiences similar to the apparent snubs she calls “microaggressions”
(MA). Secondly, she inadvertently
applied the same systematic methods that she claims to decry, by depriving
whites (solely because of their color) of the dignity of either being heard or engaging
with her in challenges which, in the name of fairness, can only be discussed on
a level playing field. To the extent
that she discourages such conversations, she is committing the fallacy, begging
the question. Thirdly, besides omitting
valid specific examples, neither she nor the MWD editor gave definition
to the term “systematic” they employ in this context, nor provide criteria by
which to discern whether or not a given setting involves a syste-matic aspect.
Fourthly, she quite apparently elevates her
preferred redefinition, not merely to fill her desired meaning with greater
depth, but to effectively discount altogether the original view (above),
thereby muffling whites completely. Fifthly,
while she chided whites for defining racism by “scissors-and-paste”[6]
methods, both she and Skolowski employ equivocation in their verbiage in such a
way as to entrench a wholesale dismissal of white perceptions. The logic of this ploy implies that because blacks
were both victims in the past, and allegedly are to this day beaten down by systematic
racism, then, according to the anticipated redefinition, blacks cannot be
racist. By stark contrast, whites by
that same logic, are actual perpetrators of systematic racist oppression. This perceptual straight-jacket conveys a
notion hauntingly similar to Nazis attaching a yellow star onto Jewish clothing
under the Third-Reich.
Notice by contrast then the words
of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence which begin, “We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal.” Now any careful student of history knows that
he, and certain other founders of our nation, held slaves; a reality which ignites
an understandable sense of shock today. Nevertheless
what should be found still more shocking (in a positive sense) is NOT
that Jefferson failed to live up to his own words, but that he nonetheless allowed
them to stand in spite of failing to keep them.
My larger point is that, although slavery would not be ended until 80
years later when the Union militia defeated the Confederate militia in the Civil
War, neither our Declaration of Independence nor our Constitution
ever enshrined or celebrated slavery in any way at all. Yet the challenge of putting our nation together
at its founding was, in reality, a very messy matter. The high level of cooperation required between
anti- and pro-slavery colonies was, in fact, beyond reach should the founders have
attempted at its very beginning to abolish slavery. It was only by compromise that the level of unity
absolutely required to achieve a United States could possibly come into
existence consisting back then, as also now, of very imperfect people.
To be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment