Anti-Racism

I am opposed to racism. I oppose racists. To paraphrase Nietzsche, I am having all the racists shot - well, metaphorically, that is.

How do we distinguish racists and racist talk from non-racists and non-racist talk? I think the answer is that we often cannot do so; at least not based on snap judgments about individual comments. Most racists will deny their racism. Most racism is promoted in disguised forms.

There is a current ideology that can be seen making the rounds, which seeks to silence political opponents by labeling them "racist." A good example, from current events, is what has been said about Martin Peretz, editor emeritus of The New Republic. Peretz has been known to express himself using pointed expression that others find offensive. Sometimes, his readers may well be correct to be offended; not always, though. And I'm not here to defend Mr. Peretz; I do note, however, the ease with which offense is found regarding what he writes.

My view is that offense can sometimes be found - and I am not talking now only about Mr. Peretz - where none is intended and where those offended, even those sincerely offended, allow their supposed moral objections to block out factual discourse. Sometimes, comments which seem racist are, on reflection, generalized comments, comments where the speaker or writer does not include a disclaimer reading something like this: "Not every person in the class of people to which my words apply are accurately labeled or described by my words."

You will note that, in the above link to Mr. Peretz's apology, he did not apologize for writing: "Frankly, Muslim life is cheap, especially for Muslims." He explains that he made "a statement of fact, not value." And, he wrote:

Every week brings more and more gruesome evidence of this, in the the Middle East and Central Asia and elsewhere. The idea that in remarking upon the cheapening of Muslim lives I was calling for the cheapening of Muslim lives, as some have suggested, is preposterous. There is no hatred in my heart; there is deep anxiety about the dangers of Islamism, and anger at the refusal of certain politicians and commentators to adequately grasp those dangers, but there is no hatred, none. In these unusually inflamed days, I am glad to say so clearly.

Can actual facts be racist? I think the answer is, "It depends." It depends on what we do with facts. For example, we can observe that students of Asian ethnic origin tend to outperform some other groups on standardized tests. That, in my view is a neutral comment. However, if we take the view that Asians cannot be trusted because they are too smart, we probably have a bigoted comment. The speaker may well be a racist, at least if the comment is representative of his or her thinking.

Take another example from famed historian Benny Morris. He was interviewed by Ari Shavit, of Haaretz. In the interview, Morris is quoted as saying:

Revenge plays a central part in the Arab tribal culture. Therefore, the people we are fighting and the society that sends them have no moral inhibitions. If it obtains chemical or biological or atomic weapons, it will use them. If it is able, it will also commit genocide.

Is that a racist comment? It might be, I suppose. It might not be. If, in fact, Arab culture is tribal, asserting that it is the case states a fact. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times thinks that Arab culture is tribal; not everywhere, to be sure, but there are, as he notes, a great many tribes. And, tribal cultures do, as has often been observed, consider those outside the tribe less valuable. And, on top of that, we have at least one important Arab religious leader who seems to advocate genocide. For example, Yusuf al-Qaradawi appeared on Al-Jazeera TV on January 9, 2009. According to the MEMRI translation, al-Qaradawi said:

Oh Allah, take your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Oh Allah, take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors. Oh Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people. Oh Allah, they have spread much tyranny and corruption in the land. Pour Your wrath upon them, oh our God. Lie in wait for them. Oh Allah, You annihilated the people of Thamoud at the hand of a tyrant, and You annihilated the people of 'Aad with a fierce, icy gale, and You destroyed the Pharaoh and his soldiers — oh Allah, take this oppressive, tyrannical band of people. Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.

These are not kind words; and Yusuf al-Qaradawi is not a minor figure either. He is said to have an audience of as many as 40 million people who listen to his show. He is, moreover, considered a leading thinker among Islamists. So, his comments are important. I should add, others have expressed similar thoughts. Google it if you doubt me.

So, knowing these facts, is the quoted Morris comment racist? I doubt it.

Why would people claim that what Morris said is racist? I can imagine many reasons, among them: that they are ignorant of the asserted facts or that they have political (or other) reasons to cover up such expression. There is one other possibility. There are many who hold the view that non-racists do not tread into such territory; so a person who speaks so impolitely must be a racist. They object to such statements as racist without caring whether the thoughts expressed are true.

In our society, this manner of thinking tends to be exploited by those who have political reasons to cover up certain facts. This, in a nutshell, is the ideology I noted at the top of this article; the ideology which is making the rounds, seeking to silence political opponents by labeling them "racist." Such people call their viewpoint "anti-racism." This viewpoint finds favor particularly in academic circles.

I think this ideology is a great danger to society. Once a person is labeled a "racist," his or her facts and ideas no longer needed to be grappled with; instead, the "racist" is shunned and his facts and ideas ignored.

There is a real cost to this way of thinking. For example, we did not learn over the course of the last several years - maybe decades - that discontent, much less some seemingly liberal discontent, within Arab society was simmering and about to explode. Apart from noting that Islamists played too large a role in Arab society, it has been, by and large, off limits to explore the societies from which this discontent springs. Instead, the non-racist view has, at least up to now, been that, somehow, Arab discontent is all our fault or all Israel's fault. Maybe we and Israelis have some fault but, quite obviously given the explosive rebellions occurring all over the Arab regions, the major problems confronting Arab societies are nearly all mostly home grown. So, anti-racism in practice is very harmful, assuming we want to learn anything about Arab societies.

[Note: It should be added, Arab governments, Islamic organizations, the oil industry, political groups on the Left and on the Right have all certainly played a role in covering over the problems within Arab societies. Nonetheless, to see seemingly smart academics, students and newspaper writers labeling as "racist" critical, yet factual, discussions about Arab societies, Islam, minorities in the Arab regions, etc., etc. is truly disconcerting.]

One last word, since many people may be offended (and, of course, I am assuming that maybe someone, someday will read my blog) by what I have written. I believe strongly in civil rights and human rights and believe that they are both positive, attractive ideologies. By contrast, I believe that anti-racism is a negative, destructive ideology which, all told, has been a disaster. My objection to "anti-racism" should not be confused with acceptance of racism. It should also not be considered as an objection coming from the "right." Rather, I believe in positive ideologies, not tearing people down, which is the norm among "anti-racists."