|
The use of the word “racism”
In reply to a commenter in a recent discussion, I restated my view that the word racism has no conceivable positive meaning:
As I’ve discussed many times, I do not agree with the widespread idea, embraced by many whites, of calling oneself a racist. Beyond the incorrect, bloated, and vicious uses of the word racist by liberals of all stripes, the word has a real meaning that cannot be gotten rid of: morally wrong speech and acts directed at other people because of their race. To affirm oneself as a racist is to say that there is no action by one’s own race toward people of other races that may be morally wrong. My position is that we can defend and preserve the white race and its civilization, without being racists. I describe my own view as moral racialism, meaning a belief in one’s own race and the rightness and necessity of defending it, combined with a belief in the moral law.To clarify this issue further, we could say that there are three schools of thought among racial conservatives, and paleoconservatives generally, concerning the use of the word racism: I. Reject the word completely. Many paleoconservatives argue that the word racism is so ideological and is used for such destructive purposes that it has no conceivable true meaning and therefore its use should be rejected under all circumstances. II. Adopt the word for oneself. A hard-line minority among race-aware whites argue that we should turn the tables on liberals by calling ourselves racists, thus transforming the word racist from an imprecation and curse into a proud label. III. Use the word in a narrowly defined, critical sense. I argue that the word racism, beyond its ubiquitous and destructive false meanings, has a core of real meaning that no other word conveys, and therefore is indispensable. However, this valid meaning of the word racism is only negative. Thus we should neither reject all uses of the word racism, nor should we use the word in a positive sense to describe ourselves. Racism has a real meaning, but it only relates to things that are morally wrong. At the same time, because of its constant use by liberals and nonwhites as a weapon against whites, and because of the devastating harm this has caused to our language and our society, we should use the word racism only sparingly—primarily to explain the difference between the false racism of which whites are constantly accused, and real racism.
While I have occasionally disagreed with each of the first two “schools” in the past, I had always dealt with them separately and at separate times, and so failed to realize that though they overlap they are distinct from each other; I thought they were the same argument. It was only in the last couple of days that I happened to become aware of both arguments at the same moment and thus realized that they are two different arguments. Here are further entries on the same topic:
Should the word “racism” be shelved altogether? [Dan M. points to “racism” as used in EU laws which for first time has me thinking that the word “racism” cannot be salvaged in any more, but I return to my view that without “racism” we have no way of describing race-based behaviors that are wrong.] Jonathan W. writes:
I was on the subway today (the No. 5 train in the Bronx) sitting on the side of one of the benches. A black woman sat down next to me and tapped my shoulder. I immediately knew she was begging for money, so I did what I always do, respond “I’m sorry” and turn away. After I did this, she gave me a spiel about how I must be a racist and that “Racism is bad because we’re all equal.” I really wanted to respond “We’re all equal? That must explain why so many whites harass me on the street and subways day in and day out, but I held my tongue as the passengers on the train were mostly black. Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 07, 2008 05:26 PM | Send Email entry |