With some issues the problem lies not in the reality that we don’t have answers, but in the fact that we are not asking the right questions.
So what’s wrong with racism anyway?
Forgive my “shock-jock” approach, but in light of recent events I think we really need to revisit this question. If racism is so obviously, unambiguously wrong- such that we are genuinely shocked by this patently absurd question- then why is there so much of it? As I heard recently, how is it that some of the world's worst conflicts in history can be attributed to or decided upon, by something as benign as the level of melanin in your skin?
Who is that stupid?
What are we missing here?
How does racism get such traction in the human soul and in the minds of, not just individuals, but whole movements?
Isn’t it time to ask another question? A question so unheard of and unpalatable that no one with any sense of propriety dares ask it. Perhaps that’s why it needs to be asked.
What’s right about racism?
Of course it’s too easy to say a resounding “Nothing!”, but we need to get inside the head of the racist. This is the question, that above all needs to be asked, not just in New Zealand but around the world. No idea will last long without some sense of justification. The very persistence of racism is evidence that people can and do find justification for it, if not rational justification. What needs full exploration is how this sense of justification is achieved and what means we can use to disarm it.
An easy target.
Part of the answer at least is sheer intellectual laziness. It is too easy to stereotype. What makes over-generalized behaviour so attractive? How is it justified? Again, because it’s so easy…If you feel justified in targeting someone- what easier identifier than skin colour? There is no mistaking it, and no denying it. It is exponentially more difficult to appraise a groups shared values and beliefs. Generally these are not carried around on our skin. A group or an individual’s convictions, attitudes, values, motives and beliefs are veiled from us in the thought life. While individuals may “wear their heart on their sleeve”, a person's or group’s motivating ideology is far less accessible and takes a concerted effort to understand. Racism gets oxygen by refusing to make the effort to differentiate between a person's race and their beliefs, because their beliefs often transpose neatly over the boundaries of race, or ethnicity and culture. It flourishes, because a person's visible race is much easier to distinguish and therefore to target, than someone who has beliefs different from our own, and which are invisible to us. And these we cannot know unless we take the trouble of respectfully engaging with them. “The great enemy of truth”, as J.F.K said, “is when we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought”
Correlation
The correlation aspect of the anatomy of racism plays an important part of the justification process. Correlation in other realms, is “one of the most common and most useful statistics”. It is a predominant issue in racist methodology. “Correlation... can show whether and how strongly pairs of variables are related.” For example there is a strong positive correlation between a vehicle’s speed and the severity of injuries in the event of an accident, which leads to conclusions of, at the very least, a contributing cause. When the speed goes up, so do the extent and severity of the injuries. Racism capitalizes on this correlation argument. Correlation equals causation. Thus to the Christchurch terrorist the word “Muslim” positively correlated strongly to “terrorism” “large families” and eventual “white decline” which in this callous oversimplification, this distorted reality, is a threat “justifying” multiple murders. Racial prejudice gets traction from faith in the idea that correlation equals causation, but skin colour doesn’t determine one’s values, beliefs, one’s worldview- the real issue is the driving ideology. Clearly the Christchurch killer’s manifesto wasn’t purely racist, along white supremacist lines, though ostensibly that is indeed a source for the hatred. At least one of the victims was undoubtedly white, European and just as much a victim of hatred. By all reports the killer was calm, collected and showed every evidence of being in control of his premeditated acts. Yet he still killed at least one of his own “tribe”. He chose his victims on the basis of their ideology, which was easily distinguishable from their dress and their location.
There are parallels between skin colour and general attitudes and beliefs, there are reasons why these things do have an association, not because of a person's skin, but because of shared circumstances, shared cultures, shared beliefs and worldviews. People of shared ancestry, suffer or thrive, under similar circumstances, eliciting certain similar responses which adds fuel to the correlation argument because we become a distinct people under common stimuli, these things add up to our cultural identity and give impetus to this correlation. The strongest contributing factor is the shared adopted narrative, the worldview of groups of people that allows them, and ourselves, to make sense of the world.
It is a deadly conflation of the issues.
If his hatred for Islam was so inflamed, then why pick on those who are unarmed, moderate and their lives completely innocuous compared to the many iterations of Islam, like Isis, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and many others? No doubt cowardice is involved.
That correlation equals causation, is so well documented, as in the increase of severity of injuries commensurate with high speed that it needs no defense. And this is the very thing that gives racism its oxygen. What we desperately need is to understand that correlation doesn’t necessarily entail causation. A racist explicitly and absolutely believes in the principle that correlation equals causation- even if they have never heard of or articulated the principle. People die of diseases everyday not knowing the name of what it was that killed them. The word “correlation” may mean nothing to a racist, but it’s their instinctive poisonous idea that a person's race is answerable, and therefore responsible for their behaviour, to which the racist rightly or wrongly objects. Here, as a matter of consistency, I have placed the responsibility- clearly not on the shoulders of the racist- but at the “feet” of the idea. The mistaken ideas are what make people racists, what poisons them. People who say “Blacks, (or Whites) are racists” are all in fact suffering under the same delusion, they are escalating the problem. They are making the same mistake. People who malign another’s race are in fact adding fuel to the fire. You may also notice, that when I criticize a racist, I don't hate them, but I hate the ideas that have taken him or her captive. It enables us to separate the person from the realities that have poisoned them, and then we can work dispassionately, objectively towards resolving these things. It enables us to see people as victims of bad ideas, we are strengthened by seeing a racist as a person that we can respect, not for the ideas they have been imprisoned by, but as a person worthy of respect due to their humanity.
A racist pays homage to the idol of correlation- making it absolute.
It’s not just essential that we name the issue of correlation, but that we do some myth busting about the absolution of the correlation rule. We need to exemplify how the rule has exceptions. "The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise." The exception establishes the rule. The exception, now well publicised in other spheres, is that correlation is not equal to causation, nor is it necessarily a source of causation. However, racism couldn’t gain traction without this sense of correlation. The colour of one's skin, often correlates to a shared worldview, to shared values to ideas held in common.
Prejudice
Here’s a personal story for example. I was in conversation with a couple who had moved locality, and felt it necessary to rent their home out. They didn’t want to cut all ties to the area so they rented it out. They rented it to people who, for want of a better word, were part of their own “tribe”, that is, they rented to people who shared a common worldview. That worldview, which shall at this point remain unnamed, inherently has strong ideals regarding respect for private property, a strong work ethic, and care for the interests of others as well as our own. To their horror, the place got badly neglected and became a source of angst between them, and a serious financial burden. Finally, in this conversation, the couple confided that they would never again rent a property to members of their own “tribe” again.
Now, what’s wrong with this story? It reveals the development of prejudice. It also reveals a serious disconnect between ideals and reality. It also reveals a serious misapprehension of human nature. It reveals a lack of faith in the idea that ideas influence behaviour.
Surely, one would think that if one’s “tribe” were very strong on the ideas of the importance of private property rights, of looking after others interests as if they were your own, then, if these ideals were upheld to a greater degree say, than the surrounding cultures, would they not stand out as a people who you were willing to entrust your private property to? Of course you would. And that was, no doubt, the original rationale that the house owners were relying on. But it shouldn’t blind you to the fact that this is only true as a generality. There are multitudes of people who, while in principle agree with these ideals, but in practice fall short. In practice they have competing ideas that are a stronger influence on their behaviour than the ideas they nonetheless agree with. In short, as a general human failing, we often hold disparate ideas, even ideas that are antithetical to each other- that compete for our obedience. Perhaps the people who didn’t live up to the “tribes” values were new to the tribe and thus hadn’t fully worked out those principles in their daily lives. Perhaps the principles of private property, looking after your neighbour, and other aspects of note within that worldview haven't really been focused on in their introduction to that worldview, leading them to continue with habits from another era. What could rationally justify the conclusion that these house owners should abandon the idea of ever renting to one of their own “tribe” again? On the basis of one soured experience? That’s prejudice in a nutshell. The experience of one bad egg has soured their perception of the whole nest. To mix metaphors, it isn’t necessarily so, that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. On the other hand, prejudice also works in the other direction. One can have a lot of good apples following ideas that at a surface level are good, but at a deeper, systemic level are evil.
It’s not about skin colour, or races. It’s about ideas.
Sometimes there is an agenda which seeks to control or limit dialogue- that weaponises racism and other “isms” in order to control and limit dialogue. The race card is played to shut down discussion and opposition to ideas that people want to promulgate unopposed. This claim of racism gets trotted out in order to protect ideas that go deeper than racism. Racism and Xenophobia get trotted out when legitimate questions are asked for instance about the issue of multiculturalism. Part of this knee jerk reaction I feel is sometimes the result of insecurity. If you have a rock solid idea, then surely there is no need to camouflage it in order to avoid scrutiny? It is only when you subconsciously feel the inherent weakness of an idea, even if the threat is more existential than articulated, the fear drives the instinctual response to protect the idea at any cost. Sometimes it’s reflexive, and ominously, sometimes deliberate. We can use the charge of racism as a way to exercise control over the narrative that we want to avoid answering difficult questions about.
Racism, as with any “ism”, is also exacerbated by how differences are treated.
Extremism feeds on the perception, real or not, of being ignored, deplatformed and marginalized which contributes to a growing sense of powerlessness and consequently, susceptibility to radicalization. When the powers that be, government, media and other powers- that lead culture- control the narrative such that dialogue with disparate groups is made impossible- or even just ineffective, there will always be individuals willing to use violence to make a statement. When Naom Chomsky observed “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” we experience a controlling narrative where peaceful change and open dialogue is disallowed by legitimizing only the status quo, and thereby encouraging extremist violence to break out.
“If you want to know who has control, ask who it is that you can’t criticize” is another indicator of whether or not freedom of speech is alive and well. The perceptive John F. Kennedy wrote “When you make peaceful revolution impossible you make violent resistance inevitable”. Thus the danger of criminalizing all opposition to Israel labelling it as anti-semitism, all criticism of Islam, as Islamophobia, demonizing all talk of white supremacy, declaring the topic off limits, will feed suspicion, mistrust and divide people and gives rise to those who advocate violence to bring the issues to a head. To shut down respectful dialogue, demonize any critique of a religion, or worldview, or political movement, to refuse to dialogue on the success or failure of such things as multiculturalism, is to court the danger of extremism. Of course this doesn’t justify it, but it does show the value of providing venues and platforms for airing the respective good or evil of various systems of thought in order that they be seen for what they are. When we cannot risk offence, neither can we be honest. This is at least partly why the West has, up till now, placed such emphasis on free expression and free speech.
To meet racism with more racism is merely to propagate and deepen the divide. Sometimes, perhaps more often than not in today's political climate, we also need to be very aware of when the "racist" card is being played to heighten the passions of unthinking people, in order to push another agenda. This is a well known ploy, to keep the opposition from being able to ask too many difficult, uncomfortable questions about the real programme that is being implemented. So racism can be a strong smokescreen to smuggle in ideas that would not otherwise stand close scrutiny. We need to remember that a "...phobia" is defined as an "irrational" fear. But anyone knows that not all fears and concerns are irrational. I am afraid that the politically charged climate we now experience in NZ is going to have bad implications for free speech. Is my fear irrational? Or prudent?
If his hatred for Islam was so inflamed, then why pick on those who are unarmed, moderate and their lives completely innocuous compared to the many iterations of Islam, like Isis, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and many others? No doubt cowardice is involved.
That correlation equals causation, is so well documented, as in the increase of severity of injuries commensurate with high speed that it needs no defense. And this is the very thing that gives racism its oxygen. What we desperately need is to understand that correlation doesn’t necessarily entail causation. A racist explicitly and absolutely believes in the principle that correlation equals causation- even if they have never heard of or articulated the principle. People die of diseases everyday not knowing the name of what it was that killed them. The word “correlation” may mean nothing to a racist, but it’s their instinctive poisonous idea that a person's race is answerable, and therefore responsible for their behaviour, to which the racist rightly or wrongly objects. Here, as a matter of consistency, I have placed the responsibility- clearly not on the shoulders of the racist- but at the “feet” of the idea. The mistaken ideas are what make people racists, what poisons them. People who say “Blacks, (or Whites) are racists” are all in fact suffering under the same delusion, they are escalating the problem. They are making the same mistake. People who malign another’s race are in fact adding fuel to the fire. You may also notice, that when I criticize a racist, I don't hate them, but I hate the ideas that have taken him or her captive. It enables us to separate the person from the realities that have poisoned them, and then we can work dispassionately, objectively towards resolving these things. It enables us to see people as victims of bad ideas, we are strengthened by seeing a racist as a person that we can respect, not for the ideas they have been imprisoned by, but as a person worthy of respect due to their humanity.
A racist pays homage to the idol of correlation- making it absolute.
It’s not just essential that we name the issue of correlation, but that we do some myth busting about the absolution of the correlation rule. We need to exemplify how the rule has exceptions. "The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise." The exception establishes the rule. The exception, now well publicised in other spheres, is that correlation is not equal to causation, nor is it necessarily a source of causation. However, racism couldn’t gain traction without this sense of correlation. The colour of one's skin, often correlates to a shared worldview, to shared values to ideas held in common.
Prejudice
Here’s a personal story for example. I was in conversation with a couple who had moved locality, and felt it necessary to rent their home out. They didn’t want to cut all ties to the area so they rented it out. They rented it to people who, for want of a better word, were part of their own “tribe”, that is, they rented to people who shared a common worldview. That worldview, which shall at this point remain unnamed, inherently has strong ideals regarding respect for private property, a strong work ethic, and care for the interests of others as well as our own. To their horror, the place got badly neglected and became a source of angst between them, and a serious financial burden. Finally, in this conversation, the couple confided that they would never again rent a property to members of their own “tribe” again.
Now, what’s wrong with this story? It reveals the development of prejudice. It also reveals a serious disconnect between ideals and reality. It also reveals a serious misapprehension of human nature. It reveals a lack of faith in the idea that ideas influence behaviour.
Surely, one would think that if one’s “tribe” were very strong on the ideas of the importance of private property rights, of looking after others interests as if they were your own, then, if these ideals were upheld to a greater degree say, than the surrounding cultures, would they not stand out as a people who you were willing to entrust your private property to? Of course you would. And that was, no doubt, the original rationale that the house owners were relying on. But it shouldn’t blind you to the fact that this is only true as a generality. There are multitudes of people who, while in principle agree with these ideals, but in practice fall short. In practice they have competing ideas that are a stronger influence on their behaviour than the ideas they nonetheless agree with. In short, as a general human failing, we often hold disparate ideas, even ideas that are antithetical to each other- that compete for our obedience. Perhaps the people who didn’t live up to the “tribes” values were new to the tribe and thus hadn’t fully worked out those principles in their daily lives. Perhaps the principles of private property, looking after your neighbour, and other aspects of note within that worldview haven't really been focused on in their introduction to that worldview, leading them to continue with habits from another era. What could rationally justify the conclusion that these house owners should abandon the idea of ever renting to one of their own “tribe” again? On the basis of one soured experience? That’s prejudice in a nutshell. The experience of one bad egg has soured their perception of the whole nest. To mix metaphors, it isn’t necessarily so, that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. On the other hand, prejudice also works in the other direction. One can have a lot of good apples following ideas that at a surface level are good, but at a deeper, systemic level are evil.
It’s not about skin colour, or races. It’s about ideas.
Sometimes there is an agenda which seeks to control or limit dialogue- that weaponises racism and other “isms” in order to control and limit dialogue. The race card is played to shut down discussion and opposition to ideas that people want to promulgate unopposed. This claim of racism gets trotted out in order to protect ideas that go deeper than racism. Racism and Xenophobia get trotted out when legitimate questions are asked for instance about the issue of multiculturalism. Part of this knee jerk reaction I feel is sometimes the result of insecurity. If you have a rock solid idea, then surely there is no need to camouflage it in order to avoid scrutiny? It is only when you subconsciously feel the inherent weakness of an idea, even if the threat is more existential than articulated, the fear drives the instinctual response to protect the idea at any cost. Sometimes it’s reflexive, and ominously, sometimes deliberate. We can use the charge of racism as a way to exercise control over the narrative that we want to avoid answering difficult questions about.
Racism, as with any “ism”, is also exacerbated by how differences are treated.
Extremism feeds on the perception, real or not, of being ignored, deplatformed and marginalized which contributes to a growing sense of powerlessness and consequently, susceptibility to radicalization. When the powers that be, government, media and other powers- that lead culture- control the narrative such that dialogue with disparate groups is made impossible- or even just ineffective, there will always be individuals willing to use violence to make a statement. When Naom Chomsky observed “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” we experience a controlling narrative where peaceful change and open dialogue is disallowed by legitimizing only the status quo, and thereby encouraging extremist violence to break out.
“If you want to know who has control, ask who it is that you can’t criticize” is another indicator of whether or not freedom of speech is alive and well. The perceptive John F. Kennedy wrote “When you make peaceful revolution impossible you make violent resistance inevitable”. Thus the danger of criminalizing all opposition to Israel labelling it as anti-semitism, all criticism of Islam, as Islamophobia, demonizing all talk of white supremacy, declaring the topic off limits, will feed suspicion, mistrust and divide people and gives rise to those who advocate violence to bring the issues to a head. To shut down respectful dialogue, demonize any critique of a religion, or worldview, or political movement, to refuse to dialogue on the success or failure of such things as multiculturalism, is to court the danger of extremism. Of course this doesn’t justify it, but it does show the value of providing venues and platforms for airing the respective good or evil of various systems of thought in order that they be seen for what they are. When we cannot risk offence, neither can we be honest. This is at least partly why the West has, up till now, placed such emphasis on free expression and free speech.
To meet racism with more racism is merely to propagate and deepen the divide. Sometimes, perhaps more often than not in today's political climate, we also need to be very aware of when the "racist" card is being played to heighten the passions of unthinking people, in order to push another agenda. This is a well known ploy, to keep the opposition from being able to ask too many difficult, uncomfortable questions about the real programme that is being implemented. So racism can be a strong smokescreen to smuggle in ideas that would not otherwise stand close scrutiny. We need to remember that a "...phobia" is defined as an "irrational" fear. But anyone knows that not all fears and concerns are irrational. I am afraid that the politically charged climate we now experience in NZ is going to have bad implications for free speech. Is my fear irrational? Or prudent?
