American Conservative Reaffirms Biological Concept of "Race"

This post at the AfroSpear's All About Race blog inspired me to wade once again into the question of the continuing use of the word "race" by Black thinkers. Consider the title that Huffing Post gave to the speech that Obama named "A More Perfect Union": "Obama Race Speech". Isn't it negative propaganda about Black people that the word "race" is attached ubiquitously to us and to everything that we think and do? The American Conservative

says,

In an era when fashionable thinkers claim that race is just a social construct, Obama's subtitle [to "Dreams of my father: a story of race and inheritance,"] is subversive."

Note the phrase "claim that race is just a social construct". You see, the American Conservative does NOT believe that "race" is "just a social concept"! Black thinkers insist upon using the word race in the belief that it has a legitimate sociological meaning. But, every time we say that we are of "the Black race" or otherwise use the word, we validate and legitimate the conservative white supremacist idea that "race" is biological. Of course, to them the word "race" is both their badge of superiority and ours of inferiority, which they use ubiquitously as a substitute for the "N" word. Instead of challenging them, we are providing linguistic cover to white supremacy by continuing to use the word "race" ourselves.

If instead we Blacks used the term "systemic denigration, subjugation and exploitation of African-Americans based on our skin color and ethnicity, then whites would be forced to either describe functionally what "race" really consists of sociologically and politically (which would educate the public) or they would have to acknowledge that they really ARE asserting the theory that Blacks are fundamentally different biologically. Because we have never abandoned the "race" word ourselves, we have never forced whites to take a position on the matter of whether "race", in their eyes, is biological or social and political.

This is why the most powerful thing that Blacks can do now rhetorically and politically is to demand that whites stop using the word "race," to insist that the word is an anti-scientific fantasy and an attack on Black's equal humanity. This would force whites to either stop using the word or to acknowledge that they don't believe that Blacks have equal biological humanity in the first place.

If you want to flush the "racists" out of the closet, just insist that they stop using the "race". The arguments that will ensue will be very enlightening. Whites who admittedly don't believe in the political concept of race will have to acknowledge that the are referring to the discredited and libelous biological concept of race, which holds that Blacks are fundamentally different and inferior biologically.

Then, we'll have them on the run politically, trapped into a public relations corner from which they will not be able to extricate themselves. We will demand proof of these fundamental differences, and they will have to admit that no sufficient proof exists, and that the real basis for their beliefs is their learned ideation about Blacks, based on culture, not science.

The American Conservative further says,

Although the biracial Obama is frequently lumped with the multiracial golfer Tiger Woods as evidence of the socially healing power of interracial marriage, their attitudes are quite different.
American Conservative

This sentence is ludicrous, if you think about it. When they say that Obama is "biracial" are they saying that, politically, he belongs both to the oppressor group and the oppressed? When, in the history of America, have half-Black people been permitted to join the oppressor group? Instead, what they are saying is that BIOLOGICAL "race" does exist and Barack Obama is biologically half from one "race" and half from another.

The only way to flush out the biological concept of race from the American psyche is to stop using the word altogether and demand that whites stop using it. The use of the word itself is a part of white privilege used to maintain whites' belief in their own inherent biological difference and superiority. Strip them of the "race" word and you strip them naked.

Returning to Barack Obama's speech, how could this speech have been about "race" if Obama never mentioned the most fundamental fact about "race": that "race" does not exist as a biological fact, but only as a sociological and political force. If you give a speech to adults about Santa Claus, should you at some point state, at least in passing, that Santa Claus is a myth, a fantasy passed on to children for their amusement and imagination? Obama never even mentioned that there is a debate as to whether race is biological or political. Obama never said that to America, so his speech really was not about the concept of "race".

Now, if Obama had said his speech was about "systemic denigration, subjugation and exploitation of African-Americans based on our skin color and ethnicity", that would have been a more accurate description of the political concept of "race" and quite a bit more challenging. If he had added that his speech was about "color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior" (otherwise known as "racism") in the presidential contest, then that, too, would have taught Americans much that they don't. (I agree that introducing all of these new concepts in the context of a presidential speech would have been much more risky than the speech he actually made, and so I am not saying that he SHOULD have done so.)

Do Blacks have to give up the "race" word and describe the political force differently if we are to have any hope that whites will give up the belief in the biological concept of "race." Can Blacks really achieve our goals in America while still enabling whites in their belief that they are fundamentally biologically different and superior? For so long as we are wedded to the word "race" as if it were our first Snoopy blanket, whites can and will continue to use the word as a subtler but ubiquitous substitute for the "N" word.

PBS site that lays out “Ten Quick Facts about Race.”

Hat tip to the AfroSpear's All About Race Blog.

Race:

The concept of “race” may be the most powerful social construct ever created. This link takes you to a PBS site that lays out “Ten Quick Facts about 'Race'.” Some highlights:

"Race" is a modern idea - Ancient societies did not divide people according to physical differences, but according to religion, status, class, even language.

Race and freedom were born together - When the US was founded, equality was a radical new idea. But our early economy was based largely on slavery. The concept of race helped to explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.

Race Justified social inequalities as natural - As the race concept evolved, it justified extermination of Native Americans, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and taking of Mexican lands. Racial practices were institutionalized within government, laws and society.

Skin color is only skin deep - Most traits are inherited independently of one another. The genes for skin color have nothing to do with genes for hair texture, eye shape, blood type, musical talent or athletic ability.

Race is not biological but racism is still real - "Race" is still a powerful social idea that gives different people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and society have created advantages to being white. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not. Ten Quick Facts about Race, PBS

Also, check out “The 'Race' Timeline”which answers the question: Has "race" always been the same?

Editor's Note: Quotation marks have been placed around the word "race" wherever it appears in the above text.

Why "Racism" Isn't Required for a Hate Crimes Conviction

Blacks have conditioned whites to believe that "racism" is bad, but "hidden racism" is less bad. The fact is that ALL antagonistic color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior is suspect and potentially corrosive to individuals, relationships and society.

"Racism" is systemic color-aroused denigration, subjugation, exploitation based on skin-color and ethnicity, right? So, if it's not demonstrably systemic, like a white person calling a stranger the
"N" word on the street, then that's NOT as bad as "racism" because it's not systemic, right?

It is entirely possible for a public act to be blatantly color-aroused and therefore suspect to most people without the same act being obviously "racist" to those same people. And so when you try to convince people that everything must be "racist" before it rises to the level of "blatancy" that requires action, YOU, YOU are setting the bar so high that you will, most times, be unable to convince others that there is sufficient cause for action.

It is obvious that Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Barack Obama were aroused by the color of Barack Obama's skin. They explicitly referenced the color of Barack Obama's skin as the basis for their rationale. So, the remarks were color-aroused. However, they are only "racist" if they were unjustified, right? So, if a person believes that they were partly justified, that person has to reject your argument that the remarks were racist. Certainly, the person cannot form an opinion as to whether the remarks were "racist" until the determine whether the remarks were justified.

Well, what if criminal law worked on the same principle, particularly hate laws? Certainly the defendant called the victim, a stranger, the "N" word just before the stranger shot the victim. That's enough for a hate crime conviction, because the defendant's verbal acts specifically referenced the victim's skin color in the act of committing the crime.

But, what if the standard were higher? What if, in addition to proving that the "N" word was used, you had to prove that this particular use of the "N" word was "racist"? Well, then you'd have to have expert testimony on the definition of "racism" and on the fact that "racism" motivated this use of the "N" word.

Would that reduce the likelihood that anyone would be convicted under hate crime statutes? You bet it would! Criminal laws have to be sufficiently clear to let the defendant know what is forbidden. Is the term "racism" sufficiently clearly to enough of society that forbidding "racism" would forbid all "racist behavior"? Of course not! That's what we spend so much time arguing about!

Criminal law makes simple evidence of color-aroused anger sufficient to increase the penalty applied. Change the burden of proof to "racism" and thousands of people would go free who would otherwise have been convicted.

Bearing the Evidentiary Burden of "Racism"

It is easier to prove the behavior instead of proving what a person is. So, how do you change the approach. It starts with us.

When we are aggrieved, instead of alleging what people "are" (which makes it hard or impossible for us to prove our case) we should state clearly what they have done and the evidence that it was color-aroused. (This is a basic tenet of therapy anyway, right? State the behavior instead of calling people names?)

We should always limit ourselves to alleging specific instances of color-aroused antagonistic behavior, NOT "racism" or that someone is a "racist." That alone will make us more credible in the media and with our patients and colleagues, because we will not be making charges that are basically impossible to prove. Instead we will be making assertions the proof of which is already in the record (e.g. co-worker has repeatedly called people the "N" word during work hours".

When we say that we are fighting "racism" it makes it seem as if individual acts of color-aroused antagonism do not, in and of themselves, rise to a level that requires remediation. Some of us believe that, in addition to proving that the person engaged in acts of color-aroused antagonism, we have to make the case that these acts prove that the person is a "racist" or we have to convince others that these acts constitute "racism".

Many white people and the media agree that acts of color-aroused antagonism are unacceptable and ought not be repeated, but they will not join us in labeling someone who engages in those acts "racist".

We need to realize that it is not necessary for someone to be a "racist" in order for them to need retraining or dismissal from a job. It is sufficient that they have engaged in one or more acts of color-aroused antagonism, because that alone is something that most people abhor, at least publicly, because we all understand how destructive, provocative and inflammatory it is.

White people will never agree that most whites are "racist". But they might agree, based on evidence, that most whites have engaged in acts of color-aroused antagonism or disparate treatment. Those are the acts that Black people are angry about, and that are destructive to the fabric of society, whether or not they were "racist" acts committed by "racists."

Here's an example: Recently surrogates for the Clintons defended the Clintons against charges of racist behavior by saying that, "the Clintons are not racists." A lot of people agreed with that assertion, but does that really address the question at hand? What difference does that make whether the Clintons are "racists" if everyone agrees that the Clintons are engaging in identifiable acts of color-associated antagonism?

We Blacks are responsible for charges of "racism" and so we Blacks are responsible for having set the evidentiary bar so high that our case becomes impossible to prove. The change has to start with us.

US Goverment Engages in New Tuskegee Type Experiments

From Yahoo News, and reprinted from Bakare Chronicle:

Although whites would have us believe that AIDS could NOT have been started by whites and that the Tuskegee Experiment could never happen again,

BALTIMORE - Scientists using federal grants spread fertilizer made from human and industrial wastes on yards in poor, black neighborhoods to test whether it might protect children from lead poisoning in the soil. Families were assured the sludge was safe and were never told about any harmful ingredients.

Nine low-income families in Baltimore row houses agreed to let researchers till the sewage sludge into their yards and plant new grass. In exchange, they were given food coupons as well as the free lawns as part of a study published in 2005 and funded by the Housing and Urban Development Department.

The Associated Press reviewed grant documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and interviewed researchers. No one involved with the $446,231 grant for the two-year study would identify the participants, citing privacy concerns. There is no evidence there was ever any medical follow-up.

Comparable research was conducted by the Agriculture Department and Environmental Protection Agency in a similarly poor, black neighborhood in East St.Louis, III. Yahoo News

Apparently, our Federal government, or at least HUD and the EPA have forgotten one of it's more blatant instances of racism and egregious errors in judgment, the Tuskegee experiment. It is impossible to read these two lines,

Families were assured the sludge was safe and were never told about any harmful ingredients.

There is no evidence there was ever any medical follow-up. Yahoo News

and not be filled with the memory, if you learned of it in history, of those young men in Tuskegee, FL, being lied to and experimented on to see the results that unchecked syphilis would have on their health. NO MEDICAL FOLLOW-UP!

It galls me. It galls me that the major news institutions can make federal cases out of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's prophetic indignation at a nation whose policies undervalue and marginalize whole populaces, and reduce it to the rantings of a mad man, when in our own backyard our own government is conducting more experimentation on its citizens!

Why isn't this being proclaimed as foul from every mouth-piece with a microphone?! Because racism and classism are bedfellows. Because distributive justice is a principal ingrained in the system, and the idea that their is a "God ordained" gap in the rich and poor is a philosophy most hard to relinquish. Especially when it has worked for you for centuries.

Truly did James Baldwin say:

Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.

Truer words have never been spoken. However, I would have to add "and minority" to Baldwin's sage words. For as the story goes on to say, and I suggest you read the whole thing:

Another study investigating whether sludge might inhibit the "bioavailability" of lead — the rate it enters the bloodstream and circulates to organs and tissues — was conducted on a vacant lot in East St. Louis next to an elementary school, all of whose 300 students were black and almost entirely from low-income families. Yahoo News

I believe I can rest my case.

How Fighting "Racism" Fails Us

Imagine that you are a psychiatrist. A patient comes to your office, referred after losing his job because he called several people the "N" word at work. Do you have to show him that he is a "racist" or that he has engaged in "racism" before you can begin treating him, or is it sufficient to know that he has engaged in acts of color-aroused antagonism that have caused him to lose his job?

Would it be helpful to start treatment by trying to convince the patient that he has engaged in "racism"? Or would it be far quicker, more positive and more useful to identify and discuss his specific acts of color-aroused antagonism and discuss how these specific acts have have hurt his employability, discussing the ideation and emotion that led to these acts? Can you see the difference? Which approach would lead to the greatest scientific consensus and quickest clinical success?

Even if the clients readily acknowledges the specific acts, and that they were color-aroused and antagonistic, will you be able to convince him that his acts are "racist" and that he is a "racist"? Is it necessary or useful to do so before treating his specific behavior patterns?

We Black people would be strategically advantaged if we simply stopped trying to argue that people were "racist" and instead argued that they had engaged in antagonistic color-aroused behavior. We need to make it clear that ALL antagonistic color-aroused behavior is unacceptable, whether it is committed by a "racist", constitutes "racism" or not. Acts of antagonistic color-aroused behavior are much easier to prove than it is to prove what someone "is".

WE have hurt ourselves by insisting that we need to prove that someone "is a racist" before they can be removed from a position of public responsibility. We have hurt ourselves by insisting that we need to prove that a policy "is racist" before it can be overturned. When we take to the airwaves, we should simply say that an act or policy is color-aroused and antagonistic, which is far easier to demonstrate than it is to demonstrate that a policy or act is part of an international pattern of systemic color-aroused denigration, subjugation and exploitation of Black people.

When I was in law school, my professor told me never to exaggerate the burden of proof, because it only made my job harder when it came time to meet the burden. Black people determine what the burden of proof is in the public square. We need to clarify the burden of proof that we observe and we need to declare much earlier that we have met our burden of proof. This would enable us build consensus more expeditiously and to act with more certainty.

We Blacks have a lot of control over this. When we go to the media about an act of color-aroused antagonism, do we call the act "racist" and start an argument that cannot be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Or do we state that which is obvious to everyone: the act is color-aroused and antagonistic and therefore is out of bounds.

The burden of prove on the charge of "racism" is far more demanding than on a criminal charge in a criminal court.

All too often, the word "racism" sends discussion about color-aroused antagonism off on a wild goose chase. Here's how it works:

1). A white human being in the United States does something to a Black human being, or says something about a Black human being or all Black human beings, which many whites and Blacks find to be repulsive and intolerable.

2). Some whites and Blacks insist that the intolerable and repulsive act was "racist" while some whites and Blacks insist that it was not, even if all agree that the acts were intolerable and repulsive. The assumption is that if the intolerable acts are found to be "racist" than they are impermissible, but if the intolerable acts are NOT "racist" then they are permissible and may be repeated at will.

3). Since there is no generally agreed upon test to determine what is "racist" and what is not (US courts don't use the term at all as the basis for their decisions and the US Congress has never defined "racism"), we therefore can reach no consensus about how to apply the "racism" test or even what the "racism" test is.

At the same time, there IS general consensus that antagonism that is aroused by perceiving the skin color of another is always suspect. And everything one does after that perception (ideation, emotion and behavior) should be subject to exacting scrutiny. For example, under federal law, if one person calls a stranger the "N" word and then shoots the person, that can be prosecuted as a hate crime. The simple fact of using an antagonistic color-associated word pretty much resolves the question of whether it was a hate crime or not.

Why? Because, after the use of the "N" word, it is obvious that the illegal behavior was prompted by the perception of the skin color of the victim. And then that perception led to ideation and emotion that might well have been hate (but could have also been envy, jealousy, fear, shame, guilt). In any case, without ever making reference to the word "racism", courts are able to determine whether skin color aroused the perpetrator to attack the victim.

When someone makes a color-associated antagonistic remark, we immediately begin to debate whether that person is "a racist". Thankfully, a defendant need not be convicted of being "a racist" to be convicted or receive an enhanced penalty under a hate crimes statute, because the question is not "what the person is" but rather, as in all criminal cases, "what the person has done and what his motive was."

Criminal law understands that motives based on ephemeral feelings and desires, and feelings that motivate unlawful plans and actions, are more important, more useful and more feasible than determining whether the defendant "is a bad person". Unfortunately, in our discussion of color arousal, we seemed compelled to go beyond the question of whether illicit ideation and emotion have motivated an illicit act; we want to determine, in addition, whether the illicit act is evidence of a "bad personality," ie. "racist."

If that were the standard in criminal courts to achieve a criminal conviction, then simple cases would last for months while prosecutors tried to prove that, in addition to having stolen something, the defendant also met the standard for "inherent thief". If he could not be proved an inherent thief, then he would go free, because what would be illicit would be the alleged nature of the personhood of the defendant, rather than a specific act of which he was accused.

Trials would last for months, every trial would require expert psychiatric and even sociological testimony; fewer cases could be tried and fewer convictions were obtained. Defendants would emerge from courts smiling, saying "They were able to prove that I stole a car, but the case foundered when they were unable to prove that I was, by nature, inherently a car thief."

Would this perpetrator be convicted if he had to be convicted of "racism"? What is the definition of "racism"? Does calling someone the "N" word once mean the assailant was really "racist"? Maybe he was just having a bad day? Sure the defendant committed an otherwise illegal act, but was it a "racist" act.

Unable to agree on whether using the "N" word once necessarily makes a person a lifelong "racist", therefor a jury might get hung up on debating "racism" and therefore not be able to decide the case at all. Had the test of hateful language been applied instead, the simple use of the "N" word would have been sufficient for a conviction under hate statutes.

In contrast, we constantly argue over whether antagonistic color-associated words and arguments are "racist", and rarely are these arguments resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

For the rest of us, however, we have to apply and resolve the "racism" test before we can decide whether that behavior rises to the level that we are allowed to be angry about it and mobilize others against.

When those who oppose hate crime laws argue against them, they never argue that calling someone the "N" word is not evidence of color-associated antagonism. That argument would be too absurd for anyone to take it seriously. Rather, they concede that it is OBVIOUSLY evidence of hate, but they argue that feelings expressed, they argue, ought not increase the legal penalty for behavior that is already illegal.

If Don Imus had called the Rutgers basketball players "nappy-headed hos" and then proceeded to shoot them, there would be no doubt in a court of law that he had committed a hate crime. Certainly, that would be the evidence needed to charge him with it. But, were his comments "racist"? Some people are still arguing that they were not sufficient "racist" to justify his dismissal.

One would think that white people would be all in favor of retiring the word "racist", but many of them are not. In fact, the interminable debate over what rises to the level of "racism" always gives whites wiggle room to engage in behavior that everyone agrees is antagonistic and aroused by or associated with skin color. "Sure, it's antagonistic and aroused by or associated with the perception of skin color, but is it "racist"?"