An honest conversation about racism

You know whenever a leftist says that we need to have an honest conversation about racism, that the ensuing conversation will be anything but. Still, let’s give it a shot.

First of all, some definitions of terms:

Racism: Hatred (as in wishing evil on) of people because of their race

Subracism: Holding of negative opinions about people because of their race

Racial generalization: Acknowledgement or understanding of general tendencies among a given racial group.

Racialism: Particular attachment to one’s own race.

It should be fairly obvious to anyone not mired in the mental fog of PC that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with racial generalization. Jews do tend to subversion and greed, blacks do tend to violence and criminality, whites do tend to degeneracy and metrosexuality, etc.

It should also be fairly obvious, to anyone not ensnared by monomania, that racism is evil. Fortunately, this ill seems to be fairly rare, and to the extent it does exists it seems to be mostly a matter of hatred felt by blacks for whites. It is moreover to be expected that racism would be very rare, and would only emerge when subracists perceived that members of another race were superior is some way (numbers, intelligence, power, etc.).

Now, subracism is a bit more widespread. Subracism is wrong because it takes racial generalization beyond its proper limits, by extrapolating general tendencies to be universal, which will result in the holding of rash or calumnious beliefs about individual people. Now, it should be clear that in modern America, the most prevelant type of subracism is by whites against whites. I once even heard a priest say that whites all have an inclination to murderous hatred of blacks, this inclination being so innate in whiteness, that even hispanics are affected by it (the priest was an anglo, for reference). As far as I can tell, most nonwhites who denigrate us tend to be more moderate in their statements, and clarify that there are of course good whites out there. Obviously, most white critics of other races are careful to be so clear.

What of racialism then? Many people, mostly anti-white white subracists, claim that any form of white racialism necessarily is motivated by racism. White right-liberals tend to make an even more expansive claim, that any form of racialism, on the part of any race, is motivated by racism. Is this true? Obviously not, since one could have people who were attached to their own people, but never interacted with others, for whatever cause. Introducing the fact that interracial interactions of whatever kind happen doesn’t change this.


2 thoughts on “An honest conversation about racism

  1. Paul says:

    I think that some of our problem on this score is that we use the category of “race” rather than “ethnicity.” While the latter word has an inevitably academic sound, I think that it more accurately designates what we should be talking about: distinct peoples constituted by common descent and culture. “Race” is too poisoned with dubious pseudoscientific and ideological baggage to be useful anymore, unless we are trying to talk specifically about biological groups, and then the usefulness of particular methods of defining race in a way that is separate from ethnicity is itself a topic of controversy.

    Granted, in the US, many people distinguish by “race” specifically, but this is more due to our unusual degree of intermixture and geographic mobility — only very obvious physical differences are readily apparent, because we encounter such a bewildering variety. Common descent and common culture are decoupled to an extreme degree. Whereas when I lived in Germany, for example, it was still possible to say that someone “looked Swabian,” although decreasingly so. If a redneck from Arkansas were to engage in his typical cultural patterns in front of an Episcopalian minister from Connecticut, or a techno-billionaire from California — regardless of their “races” — they would make negative judgements about him based on their opinions of his ethnicity. But if I dressed him neutrally and he was just sitting there, they would likely not do this until cultural markers appeared. This is why people fight about whether someone is “really black,” for example. He may obviously be of predominantly Bantu descent, but in America, that can have surprisingly few implications for his individual cultural inheritance — or not.

    While I agree that it is necessary to define terms at the outset of a discussion, as you do, I would recommend replacing the word “race” and “racial group” with “ethnicity” as I define it above. Unfortunately, I would say that the terms “racism” and “racialism” have been so thoroughly redefined and freighted with moral connotations by liberals that it’s pointless to try to use them. Similarly, we’ll need to define “white” and “black,” or we’ll be subject to the confusion that most people suffer when they talk about these topics — if good liberals, privately, in fear of being overheard and condemned.


    • Your point about American concern with race instead of ethnicity is a valid one. Though “American white” and “American black” are definitely distinguishable cultural-biological groups, their being further divisible notwithstanding.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s