Setting the Example in the Racial Discussion

In an earlier post, I stated that referring to a desire to have a smaller government and fewer entitlement programs as a libertarian ideology, not a racist ideology.  I also stated that referring to someone who doesn’t think the government should be helping anyone as “racist” is the equivalent of coughing and saying “douchebag” during a debate.  We’ve gotten to a place in our society where we now consider all conservatives to be racist because they want smaller government, which is not the way to have a conversation about race in the United States.  The problem with labeling people who are ignorant as “racists” is that everything then becomes a racist act, and not all insensitive, ignorant, or stupid act or statement is racist. I hesitate to write this, because insensitivity and ignorance are extremely problematic in our culture, and allow us to be apathetic towards suffering, social injustice, and institutionalized oppression of minority classes in the U.S.  I am not advocating for racists.  Fuck those guys (and girls.)  I am advocating for setting the proper example, and avoiding extremism/line-in-the-sand drawing.  While I will always believe that none of us are truly free until all of us are free, it isn’t helping anything to instantly label well-meaning but misinformed people, or people who have a different opinion as to the role of government as “racist.”

The problem with ignorance is that intent matters.  My dad once said to me “Barack Obama will never be elected President, because he’s Muslim, and there’s just no way the United States is ready for a Muslim President.”  Two things about that: Number one, this was WAY before the general election, and that crazy lady at the McCain rally referring to then-Senator Obama as a Muslim; My dad just assumed Barack Obama, based on his name, was Muslim. The second thing is that my dad really isn’t religious, and doesn’t care what anyone else’s religion is either; he was making the statement as a casual (and often incorrect) armchair pundit.  My dad’s statement was blindly ignorant, but it carried with it the absolute absence of malice.  He was wrong, and wrong in a way that was based upon assumptions and a void of information, but it wasn’t racist.  My dad is the type that respects the office of the President whether he agrees with the President or not. He wasn’t going to vote for John McCain because of Barack Obama’s perceived religion; he was going to vote for John McCain because Barack Obama wants to take away my dad’s guns, BY GAR!

The difference between ignorance and racism is the intent in the statement.  Just as the First Amendment outlaws government from passing any law for religious purposes, a law that has the same effect, but is made for no religious purpose is legal and constitutional.  For example, if Congress passes a law mandating a moment of silence for all public schools every morning to allow all students the chance to reflect and prepare for their day through thoughts or prayers, that is an unconstitutional law, as it respects the establishment of religion, which is expressly barred in the United States Constitution.  However, if Congress passes a law for silent reflection, with no rationale whatsoever other than calling it a mandated fifteen seconds of silent reflection in all public schools, that is a Constitutional law, as there is no religious intent.

What does that have to do with racism and ignorance?   I have met plenty of people from my hometown who say and do things that are based in ignorance, but not spite, ill-will, or intent to disadvantage or harm.  Plenty of people from my home town refer to Asian people as “Oriental” or “Chinese” even though they are Japanese, and “Oriental” is not the preferred nomenclature, dude. Asian American, please. But they aren’t doing it because they think Asian people are less-than, or because they wish to belittle the person’s culture.  They do so because they are ignorant of more accurate and politically correct terminology.  I know a man who refers to black people as “colored” people, not because he dislikes them for being black, but rather because he doesn’t know any better.  Shouldn’t we reserve the term “Racist” for someone who does so in spite of knowing it’s wrong, and, in fact, because it’s wrong?  A Klansman tossing around N-Bombs is racist and a bigot.  A Klansman hates black people because they are black.  Someone who believes that using the phrase “colored” because they think that’s what is correct usage is ignorant.

This isn’t to say that ignorant people are just to be smiled at and teased when they are not around.  Ignorant people should be gently but firmly corrected; it’s like having a piece of spinach stuck between your teeth – how are you to know it is there unless you’re made aware of it?  If they don’t care, and continue to use the terminology that is offensive, then they are pushing their way into racism.  The person I know who used the term “colored” did his best to replace it with “Africa-American” because he couldn’t properly annunciate “African-American.” It was his desire, at age 63, to forcibly fight against his instilled ignorance with regard to racial verbiage and ensure that he wasn’t offending anyone.  That’s not the heart of a racist.

To be racist, one needs to have the intent of belittling, disadvantaging, disenfranchising, or harming someone of another race because they are of that race.  A person can harbor ill will toward someone of another race without being racist, so long as the reasons are not based in the person’s skin tone or cultural heritage. It is when that person applies those feelings of malice against a single person for reasons other than their race to the entire race that makes them racist.  The intent to do harm because of race is what makes someone racist.

Additionally, just because someone is a small government conservative, who doesn’t want the government to be responsible for a social safety net doesn’t make them racist.  It doesn’t make them ignorant, either.  Most libertarians and conservatives know that cutting social safety net programs disproportionately affect minorities.  It’s not a matter of making those decisions to screw over people of color.  Rather, it’s because they don’t think the Government’s role is to provide that standard of living for its citizens.  I wholeheartedly disagree with this opinion.  This doesn’t make me some great racial crusader.  Many libertarians know that, by wanting the government to stop outlawing drugs, both Marijuana and much harder, it will cause plenty of people with serious addictions and the problem of drug abuse in the United States to skyrocket.  It’s not that they really liked the movie Scarface, or wanted tons of people to get hooked on smack; it’s that they don’t think the government should be policing vices.  This isn’t exactly a mainstream opinion, but just because something is a well intentioned, or has net positive effects doesn’t make it something the Government should do.

We need to calm down with branding everything racist.  There is plenty of racism to go around.  We need to understand when people are misinformed and ignorant, but willing to change with firm, understanding corrections of their misstatements and ignorance.  Once presented with evidence to the contrary about Barack Obama’s religious affiliation, my dad recalculated his opinion.  Had I said, “Dad, that’s racist,” my dad would’ve shut down and become defensive, and he’d never have looked at the information I’d presented to the contrary.  To some, this might seem childish, however, my dad is very proud of his intellectual curiosity, and his brand of compassionate conservatism (though, he is a big fan of social security and Medicare.  Probably because he is about to start drawing from both.) Such a statement would’ve hurt his feelings, and caused him to disengage from the conversation.  Why shouldn’t we assume others would do otherwise when called racist or prejudiced?  Shouldn’t we be reaching out to present opinions to the contrary to those who are willing to engage us in honest debate, rather than shouting at them like it’s the scene outside the courthouse in “A Time To Kill?” (Or, to another degree, hurling a Molotov cocktail at the Grand Wizard?) Instead, we are allowing the moderated shouting matches on cable news dictate the tenor of our conversations, a dangerous precedent, as each pundit attempts to top the previous wild claim to garner more air time, sell more books, and eventually (hopefully) land a show of their own.

Call a spade a spade, but when a person is misinformed, they shouldn’t be scarred with the mark of racism for the sake of winning an argument through attrition. The laws of our land require juries to assume defendants are guilty until proven innocent.  In the court of public opinion, we too often jump to guilty in these instances, when it would be more constructive to believe someone is ignorant in their opinion.  When pressed, if they truly harbor hateful feelings, they’ll make it known.