Thursday 5 January 2012

Racism part 1


Dianne Abbott said "white people love playing divide and rule". The question is, does that show that she is a racist?

I think one reason why arguments about this question are on the whole fruitless is that different people mean different things when they talk about "racism" and "racists", so in this post and some more coming soon I am going to try to make sense of the situation. First here are what I consider the two main definitions:

Racism1: A state of affairs where members of some races are systematically disadvantaged compared to members of other races 
Racism2: The claim that there are true race-based generalisations  
 
Racist1: Someone who promotes Racism1 
Racist2: Someone who believes in Racism2 

These definitions fit the Dianne Abbott situation pretty well. There is ample evidence, all things considered, that Dianne Abbott is not a Racist1: for one thing, she has spent most of her professional life trying to reduce the systematic disadvantage that black people face in Britain. On the other hand, her tweet suggests strongly that she is a Racist2.

This isn't yet satisfactory: there are several questions that still need to be answered. Specifically:
(i) Is it bad to be a Racist2?
(ii) If the answer is "sometimes" (clue: I think it is), then when? 
(iii) Is there a connection between the two kinds of racism? If so, what is it? 
I want to think about these a bit and then write some more. In the meantime, is this a good rational reconstruction so far? Are there forms of racism that these definitions don't capture or do they label things as racism incorrectly? Also any good articles on this subject would be appreciated.
 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment