WHILE I have repeatedly asked the editors to remove my photo from next to my editorial column, the fact is it's here to stay. People want an identity to go with the opinion and they are simple enough to believe that a snapshot will do the job. How much can we learn from that face? If he's cute, I can forgive him for being a Republican. She's wearing a polo shirt so I can take her word on the Greek system. And most of all: if she's not black, she has no right to be talking about black people.
After a careful analysis of my vast folder of letters from readers, I have isolated the number one complaint I receive as just that. Notably, though I opine on a variety of racial groups, this particular group protests most vehemently. Using the rhetoric of legitimacy, certain readers protest that I am not qualified to determine what is and is not racism against black.
They are wrong.
Certain types of opinions can and should stand independent of identity. Further, limiting who is enfranchised to speak on the boundaries of racism deprives the race dialogue of valuable perspectives and has negative implications for how we treat racial difference.
It's true that no non-black person can comprehend what it feels like to be a black person in America. And yes, an understanding of the "black experience," if a universal one can be said to exist, is a prerequisite to answer certain positive questions (e.g. how does a black person feel to have a racial epithets hurled at them?) However, a lack of certain pigmentation of skin does not preclude the ability to assess normative questions on the subject of race.
Racism is so much more than a single person judging another on their skin color. It is a complex set of ideas and prejudices whose definition is neither temporally nor culturally universal. While narrowly, racism is deployed and felt by individuals, it is above all an overarching ideology that drives problems of race in America. Thus we can tackle it in terms of personal relations all we want, but only the deconstruction of this framework on its abstract level will truly eliminate racial prejudice.
Consider it historically. Seventy-five years ago, the prevailing opinion saw race as a biological category and blacks were thus fundamentally inferior to whites. It was the writings of scientists, which convinced people that this viewpoint was wrong. The school desegregation decision and the resulting decline in racial prejudice were facilitated by the study of a Swedish sociologist. Intellectual perspectives are not only capable of making real progress, but are often necessary for minds that crave a sense of legitimacy. Americans, perhaps more than any other nationality, are willing to listen to reason. And racism is a subject conducive to a rational analysis.
Racism does not exist in a vacuum -- it is subject to historical and cultural circumstances. For example, the reason a blackface Halloween costume qualifies as racism derives from the history of minstrel shows. History does give victim groups something of an advantage over perpetrating groups when it comes to deeming things racist. In other words, it is safer to give the victim the benefit of the doubt. But ideally,the victim's perception alone is not categorically valid -- feeling offended does not ensure that something is legitimately racist. It is both unjust and dangerous to give the victim that kind of power. This is most certainly not to validate the ignorant that whine, but I didn't mean that to be racist. But we must factor out the subjectivity of both intent and perception to come to grips with the more objective things we can handle. Superimposing logic onto racism, as an ideology purportedly based on those terms, will achieve the correct ends.
Further, if a non-black skin color precludes me from analyzing racism, who does have the privilege? Suppose black people can talk about racism against blacks. Yet, many blacks Americans would say that certain others, particularly conservatives like Clarence Thomas, cannot speak for them either. So who can? If empirical data, that is, experience, is the sole determinant in qualifying people to address racism, then the black community would have to be homogenous for anyone to speak for anyone else. And in essence, we've cut off any change of reconciliation through debate.
I do not want to belittle the tangible effects of racism, which haunt our past, present, and future. It's real, it's terrible, and it's hurtful. But to eliminate it, we must step away first. It would be great if editorials ran free of a face that could falsely incriminate or validate an opinion, but they do not. Reading colorblind might serve as much of a purpose of seeing that way.
(Kimberly Liu's column appears Monday in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at kliu@cavalierdaily.com)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
YOUNIS: The danger of dehumanizing language
By Ayat Younis | 3 days agoThe administration’s failure to condemn blatant discrimination exacerbates an impossible situation, fostering an atmosphere that misinterprets pro-Palestinian sentiments as support of terrorism.
BRUNMAN: U.Va. administration, protect your Jewish students
By Wylie Brunman | 3 days agoWhen antisemitism is increasingly prevalent on Grounds and when Jewish students feel unsafe and unprotected, it is clear that the University must take active action to safeguard Jewish students.
