Always Remember, The Debate is Framed by the Language
June 1st, 2006 | by Craig |If Orwell were the type to say, “I told you so.” Right now, he’d be saying, “I told you so.”
This has been all over the ’sphere, and I’m just getting around to commenting on it, but does anyone else find the Seattle Public Schools Definitions of Race rather disturbing?
Whoops! Can’t find the link? Evidently they took it down, but good old Google has the cache.
If you don’t want to read the whole thing, the upshot of it is that only white people can be racists.
Now, I haven’t been around a lot o’ this great big world, but one thing I can tell you is that I have found racists of every color. To codify it as a white trait is a little, well, racist, don’t you think?
5 Responses to “Always Remember, The Debate is Framed by the Language”
By Gman on Jun 1, 2006 | Reply
Take this statement:
“Individual Racism:
The beliefs, attitudes, and actions of individuals that support or perpetuate racism. Individual racism can occur at both an unconscious and conscious level, and can be both active and passive. Examples include telling a racist joke, using a racial epithet, or believing in the inherent superiority of whites.”
It would be fine if the last word was replaced with “another race.” I would say that goes for the whole document.
I think white people write these statements to assauge their guilt.
By Margi on Jun 1, 2006 | Reply
Sometimes, this state is doubleplus ungood.
By Andrew on Jun 1, 2006 | Reply
As a white male, I do feel bad about how my race has treated others in the past. However, I don’t feel guilty about it since I had nothing to do with it. And I certainly don’t start redefining terms to excuse all others who act in ways that I think is bad.
Believing in racial superiority is a position of ignorance, no matter what color you are. No one should get off the hook for being stupid.
Gman: I think the excerpt you pulled is actually okay since they said those were examples of racism, which is true. The one above it, however, is more skewed:
Racism:
The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites). The subordination is supported by the actions of individuals, cultural norms and values, and the institutional structures and practices of society.
Let me offer one of my own:
Racism: discriminating against a person based on that person’s race
I think that about covers it.
By Gman on Jun 2, 2006 | Reply
Good points, Andrew. I think we both see that the statements say too much. If they would just use your definition of racism — which is always a sin in my book — it would be fine. Racism is bad regardless of what race is on the receiving end. I realize, however, that there is a dominant race and that can’t be ignored. But, just because whites are dominant, doesn’t mean that it’s OK to bash whites, or, as the statement does, single out whites.
I wonder what race relations would be like if we lived by the teaching of Christ to “love your neighbor as yourself”? Moreover, what about the corollary to love your enemies. In Matthew 5:43-48 Christ says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
I realize this is inimical to human nature, but aim of the Gospel is to transform human nature into the likeness of Christ.
By Gee Guy on Jun 7, 2006 | Reply
I wasn’t able to read the piece, because even the cache was down by the time I got there. It sounds, though, like it was really a rehash of “critical race theory.” Forgive me for paraphrasing, but it goes something like this.
First premise: All people of all races are inherently bigoted and discriminatory against people of other races.
Second premise: While a person may be a bigot, in order to be a “racist,” a person must have institutional power.
Third premise: All whites have institutional power; no blacks have institutional power.
Conclusion: All whites are racist. No black can be racist.
Neat, huh?