WHO IS racist? It seems to be the question of the week. Am I racist? With dozens of students telling me that I am, it would be unfair to not at least consider the possibility. So let me consider this now. No. I don't believe I am racist - but maybe it's not that easy. Some students would agree, some would disagree, while still others would say, "Who are you and why do we care?"
Anyone who reads The Cavalier Daily, is involved in a race-centered student group, or walked by the fluorescent fliers outside Bryan Hall last week recently has been subjected to multiple opinions on what is racist and what is not. I never considered racism to be a subjective condition - but it turns out that it is. What has begun is a hardheaded battle of people mutually accusing each other of racism. And even before this could be done, people must have questioned what they include in their personal definition of racism. Certainly, my racial philosophy stems from mine.
The definition of racism is ambiguous for many. Many believe that racism simply means that one racial group, usually the majority, feels that they are superior to another racial group.
|
But it has transcended a simplistic meaning of white people thinking they are better than black people. Webster's defines racism as "the assumption that psychocultural traits and capabilities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another." There is nothing genetic and nothing absolutely culturally consistent that says that members of the same race should associate more with one another than with members of other races. Racism is a view that race contributes largely to, if not determines, identity. Racism consists of both condemning and praising people based on race.
Maybe we can't all be racially blind, but we can strive to be more individually aware. All of us. The current societal trend in America is to encourage white people and predominantly white institutions not to discriminate against minorities on the basis of race - and this trend should continue. It's true that in the past the white community was much more responsible for racial tension. But because non-whites have been oppressed - and in some cases still are oppressed - does not mean they shouldn't also embrace the ideal of racial blindness.
There are other prevailing opinions on Grounds of what constitutes racism. Some feel that by disapproving of institutions and organizations on Grounds that have race as a unifying factor is racist. Or it's racist to insist that no form of racial solidarity should exist. Also, the condemnation of affirmative action is racist. However, these beliefs all imply that there are inherent differences between races and existing factors which unify absolutely all members of the same race. They may be helpful to minorities, but they are detrimental to the overall community's racial harmony. After all, emphasizing differences is what caused segregation, hate crimes and slavery in the first place.
I personally believe that in an ideal society, there would be no race. This is the only way that racism could ever completely be abolished. Removal of race would not necessitate complete assimilation or lack of diversity. Society could healthfully embrace and benefit from logical, founded, cultural differences. Diversity is good, but ideally, racial diversity would be unnecessary.
This utopian vision is impossible. But by striving as much as possible to focus on the individual as unassociated with race, we can move closer to this ideal. Not only should people not be deemed inferior because of their race, but also they should not make any associations on the basis of it.
Even Martin Luther King Jr. wanted people to emphasize their individuality and not their race. In his most famous speech, he asserted, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
The current debate on racist ideas has made abundantly clear what should have been obvious from the start - racism means different things to different people. Conflict proves that a discrepancy exists and that people care enough to make an effort to do something.
The most valuable thing that has come out of many recent race-related opinion columns is the dialogue that has started on Grounds. Agree or disagree, the most intelligent people on Grounds are those who advised me to continue expressing my opinion, despite their disagreement, and the most ignorant have demanded that I never write on the subject of race again. I'd rather have you intelligently evaluate my opinions and reject them than not read them at all.
(Kimberly Liu's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at kliu@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 4 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 4 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
