One of the most difficult things about discussing race in America is, like most things, a certain ambiguity of language. Race, for example, has no biological basis. To divide people based on genetic lineage is absurd and legal strictures based on this division become hopelessly convoluted before they breakdown altogether. Rather, race is a group with a certain social, cultural, historical, and economic commonality. It’s as much a choice for the individual as it is an imposition by larger societal forces. It no surprise then any discussion is going to complicated. Which is fine, so long as the discussion remains complicated and nuanced. It’s tempting to simplify, but reductive reasoning is one of the most significant problems in this discussion. In fact, it’s this tendency to narrow the collective experience of people that is, in many ways, so devastating and dehumanizing.
Racism at the moment has two working definitions. One definition of racism is a narrow form of bigotry. Which is to say, it is racist to discriminate against an individual or groups because of their race. This might manifest as hateful words and actions, criminal activity targeting a group, denying people products, services, access to goods, neighborhoods, etc.
There is a second and perhaps more important definition of racism. It an economic, social, and political system designed to benefit one group above that of another. The starkest example of this kind of racism was apartheid in South Africa but it is endemic at every level in every country, even this one, perhaps especially this one.
One of the great frustrations of minorities trying to tackle racism and discrimination in America, is the charge of Reverse Racism. You hear this often, especially in regard to programs or institutions designed to rectify centuries of abuse, neglect, and discrimination. For example, some schools and scholarship programs exist to help black people obtain a high quality education. Since these programs do not help white people get an education, one might say this is “Reverse Racism”, which is, of course, ridiculous. These kinds of programs exist to merely ameliorate the inequality endemic in the educational system as it exists today. So no. There’s no such thing as a “Black racist” because they can not benefit from a system that marginalizes them regardless of how successful that person might be. Oprah and President Obama are outliers and do not demonstrate the absence of discrimination or inequality.
Even if you go by the simpler definition that “racism” is merely a subset of bigoted behavior or attitude, what prejudice majority groups experience (individually or collectively) in their lives is trivial compared to what a person of color might experience. Which is not to suggest that we should condone prejudicial behavior from anyone, only that as a white person I can bear this “burden” of tolerance. (I use the word “burden” ironically, obviously)
However, in so much as reverse racism does not exist, minorities want it to. Whatever shape or form their demands for equality may take, it will require shifting time, energy, attention, and resources from the groups which currently possess them. It may be justified in the grand scheme of things. It may be moral and ethical and idealistic, but minorities and liberals must do much better than “in the name of social justice”. As we talk to those who have the money and the resources, what incentives are there for this shifting of emphasis? Why is it in the interest of white male America to do more than merely placate everyone else just enough to avoid civil disruption?
Whether Reverse Racism exists or not is completely beside the point (and yes I realize how ridiculous that sounds). Liberals are going to have to find a way to address the subject seriously or the movement will stutter and stall…. basically like it’s been doing the last 30 years. Surely this can not be that difficult?