Race Language pt 2: The Dictionary

Posted on Updated on

The language of race is still in its infancy.  That may sound odd.  Does racism need a language?  It does.  Every serious field of study over time develops a highly specific lexicon.  Social justice will need one.  Perhaps it already has and I just don’t know what it is.  When it comes to social sciences I am an admitted amateur.  However, as a lay-person there are a couple of methods I’ve heard activists use to try to describe the experience of minorities.  I’ve listened to music spanning genres, I’ve heard some of the poetry, read some of the books, I try to keep an eye out for prominent minority journalists, and of course non-white comedians (also a lot of white comedians but that’s not really germane to the point here).  But as a white person I can’t use that language.  Take a black comedian for example.  Their pithy insights on racial issues are often profound, but its purely in one direction.  I can’t say those things.  I wouldn’t even if someone let me.  But this is the only race language that many, if not most, white people have heard.  In terms of crafting a narrative, this language is second to none.  However, it does nothing to foster dialogue between disparate groups.  The assumption inherent to cultural immersion, is that if someone can engage with the various cultural elements long enough, then they will begin to understand that culture both as a collection of individuals and as a group and this in turn will defeat racism.  This is one of the reasons that cultural appropriation is such a sin.  Further, not only has this assumption shown to be false, we’ve doubled down on it with a kind of collective immersion that has proven to be doubly ineffective.

For long term social change, a new language must be had.  It must be exceedingly precise, verifiable, and transmissible.  The fundamental failing of the current language is that is largely dependent on one’s subjective personal perspective.   I’m sorry to say, we’re talking about math.  It’s not enough that policies like Stop&Frisk are racist.  It’s not enough that people are harassed and inconvenienced, it’s not enough that it’s a miscarriage of justice.  It’s that the searches of black men outnumber black men by at least 2:1.  It’s when you can show that the government of Ferguson has a 90% white police force in a predominately black neighborhood and have been using racially biased citations to fund the city government then you have a basis for social change.  Or It’s the racial biases in sentencing laws.  These and other examples are the numbers promoting social change.

But let’s talk about White social change.  Do white people sing songs, go on marches, read poetry, write books?  Sure.  And I’d argue that this has been as effective for White people as it’s been for Black people.  It’s tempting to believe that the Whites are in power as a result it’s their policies.  There may be some truth to that but That’s an incredibly simplistic view.  White social change got its start in the 60s too, only it started with think tanks.  Organizations dedicated to finding mathematical justification for the issues of the day.  These think tanks are effective for several reasons.  One, their very well funded.  Secondly, they produce a data  set that supports their favored policies.  Thirdly, they they promote specific policy objectives.  Fourthly, they are fundamentally based on self-interest.

When we talk about even relatively positive things the only effective means will be through a specific context.  Like gentrification.  In most places this is a wonderful thing.  Property values go up, cities prosper, services and opportunities expand.  It’s a genuinely wonderful thing.  So why are minorities upset? Because it’s only minority neighborhoods that fall within a certain percent of diversity (less than 35% black).  And because local laws make development and expanding housing and transportation difficult (You can’t make more housing available, you can only make it more expensive).  It’s a policy that actively marginalizes minority groups by pushing them into underdeveloped parts of the town, which, under normal circumstances, would undergo a cycle of development except an institutional bias against risk taking from conservatives, and anti-exploitation efforts from liberals make development a difficult prospect.  It’s probably not intentional, it’s probably the culmination of different power brokers looking after their own interests that generate a racial disparity.  But if you want to change it, then you have to have the numbers to back it up, and you have to have specific policies to address it, and you have to have an argument why including poor families and minority groups are beneficial for everyone.

I look forward to the day when moral questions will win out over questions of self-interest, but we have not arrived there yet.  Activists use the language of social justice.  They passionately talk about fairness, justice, feelings and story.  It resonates with the human heart like nothing else can.  But when you compare that to my own selfishness, it’s a losing argument.  I, and most people, have no problem with the cognitive dissonance of being moved by the plight of racism in America while at the same time being comfortable doing nothing about it.  Consider Ferguson.  When militarized police starting burning down the town of Ferguson, it caught the nation’s attention.  Why? Because a black kid got shot?  No.  I wish that was true.  That should be true. I wish as a society we cared about that kind of selfless inequality.  But it was because it was manifestly apparent that this kind of response could have far reaching implications.  A smart activist group might point out that if they can brutalize and harass people of color, they can harass and brutalize anyone with impunity.  And indeed that case has been made and made effectively.

Specific language, math language and large data sets, specific policy objectives, and enlightened self-interest.  This is the language of social change.  This is the kind of language we need to use to discuss race.  At the moment, the way race is discussed actively precludes anyone not part of that specific minority group and that needs to change.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s