The columnist Ruben Nararrette is always interesting and usually right (even Right), but “usually” by definition is not always, and his column today is a good example of his being wrong. (HatTip to RealClearPolitics)
First, the opener:
Conservatives put an emphasis on unity as the justification for English-only laws and banning affirmative action.
Not so. At least the conservatives I know and read justify banning affirmative action based not on “unity” but on the principle that racial discrimination is wrong.
But that was part of an awkward and unnecessary lead-in to Navarrette’s real point today:
From this point on, when an allegation of racism against blacks comes up, whites should try to be humble and deferential, and accept the fact that they’re in a poor position to judge whether such racism exists since they’re not directly impacted by it one way or another. To be fair, when the issue becomes alleged racism against whites, blacks should behave the same way.
It’s a simple concept. A locker room full of men probably isn’t the best judge about the existence of sexism. A group of non-Jews isn’t equipped to determine if something is anti-Semitic. Heterosexuals probably aren’t the ones to assess homophobia.
….
This isn’t to say that the opinions of whites are irrelevant. Only to point out the obvious — that, given this country’s history of race relations, the fact that whites refuse to acknowledge that blacks are being treated unfairly isn’t exactly news.
Not only does this last point beg the question — it assumes that in any and every situation where “whites” deny racism they do so only because they are in blind denial — but, more importantly, this advice, if followed, would exclude the alleged perpetrators of racism from participation in the debate about race.
Dumb.
John says
“the alleged perpetrators of racism”
What a phrase! This phrase is so wrong on so many levels that I don’t know where to start.
Let me start by saying something that virtually everybody shies away from: Racism is not entirely negative, nor is it entirely desireable to eliminate it. Racism at its most basic is an element of self-defense. We all belong to a tribe and the first thing we notice upon meeting a member of another tribe is the external differences between tribes.
Those who refuse to do this will not live very long lives. Why the pretense that this is not true?
The word “perpetrators” suggests that holding a dislike for another group or race is similar to or the same as a crime. Nonsense. This is so obviously not true that I hesitate to comment upon it. We have the right to dislike any person or group we please.
The author of this article is a dinosaur. What’s needed now is not hypersensitivity to issues of race, sex and class. What’s needed is a sense of humor, and a refusal to become embroiled in the worn out homilies about race, sex and class. In short, the very consciousness that the article describes needs to be junked.
In its place we need: (1) thicker skins, (2) a sense of humor, (3) an awareness that human nature is unlikely to fundamentally change, and (4) a determination to teach the young to succeed in the face of insults and obstacles.
The “we’re gonna make the world perfect, and perfectly sensitive” outlook is wrong, humorless and witless. It’s a waste of time. Throw it in the trash.
Like ArthurS I usually agree with Navarette’s columns, and also usually find interesting the occasional column, like this one, that I don’t agree with. I simply do not think it a good ideal to attempt to exclude either whites or blacks, liberals or conservatives, from any dialogue about racism on the grounds that their comments, a priori, can be dismissed as biased, blind, in denial. I believe Navarette was simply wrong to equate “whites” discussing racism with towel-snapping men in a locker room discussing sexism. Neither of those groups should be regarded as the final arbiter of racism/sexism, but neither should be excluded from the discussion.
If white people are excluded from conversation about white-on-black racism, then that means that any dialog is going to be had only among black people and we white folks can just go on about our business. This makes sense?
I also don’t agree about the guys-in-the-locker-room situation, and here’s why: There have been times when I, a white person, have talked to another white person about race issues and they have been open to me where a black person saying the same things would have put them on the defensive. I can imagine a guy in the locker room reacting to an egregiously sexist comment by pointing out how wrong and unfair it is.