Sunday, September 8, 2013

.........and more labeling

At the bottom of page 36 Taylor brings attention to the concept of "who" can be racist. He expands his "pluralistic approach" of how people can execute racism (extrinsic, intrinsic, indirect) by providing a greater explanation of who actually has the ability to participate in those very acts. He first mentions the model of racism that the "PPP" was based off of: that anyone who was not white "collectively lack the power to make their prejudices operative"(36). Without having to discount this interpretation, Taylor's open position on the matter questions the validity of it acting as a general model. Instead he acknowledges the significance of which white supremacy has on the spectrum of racism and how it has "systematically and disproportionately shaped the development of Western societies. Subsequently he unfolds the contradiction, which appointing the ability to enact racism to only one race, actually counteracts the the ability for a "general account of racism" and, "obscures other ethically questionable phenomena that seem pre-theoretically to count as instances of racism"(36). By taking such a general approach to the matter, he is able to put into perspective the "variety" of those who carry on racist intentions, and the gravity to which it has on the general population this act of racism is prescribed towards. Taylor eventually comes to the conclusion that any race, can in fact be racist, if that individual consistently declares his/her hatred towards all who can be characterized as the specific race of his/her focus. Here Taylor asks a really important question, "What do we gain by refusing to call it racism?"(37) He emphasizes that there is no reason to discount the ability for any race to execute racism, rather to identify the severity of the act and the magnitude in which it effects the targeted group as a whole. So he stresses that anyone can be racist, but that does not necessarily amount to the racism of "the social ills that follow from centuries of white supremacist exclusionary practices"(36). I ask the same question as him. What is the point of excluding all but one race of have the ability of being racist? Why charge one race and ignore the others? Like he asks, "why not just say that this sort of individual racist assault pales in significance beside the systematic racism?"(37) It is important to recognize that white supremacists have implemented a systematic form of racism that governs and disproportionately benefits only those that fall under whiteness--because it is important to establish  that white supremacists have mobilized racism to such a degree that it has given them the ability and even authority to target and convict all non-whites. However, it is important to realize that an act of hate is an act of hate. A minority that targets another race other than their own is still an act of racism, just incomparable to the same degree as white racism in America. So what do you gain by condemning only one race to have the ability to "disregard" another race? Instead of grasping the gravity the difference between racists actions? The blame game does not solve any issues. Acknowledging the potential for anyone to be racist, even if it does not play a significant role to the underlying problem in America, does not, and should not change the fact that the systematic racism set by the majority is the most prevalent, and in dire need of dismantling. But to deny the ability of other races to be racist is somewhat comparable to the ideal, but faulty concept of colorblindness. The ability to "disregard" is not colorblind--just color-concentrated with whiteness.

No comments:

Post a Comment