The Anti-Racist’s Racism

The only way to combat racism was to change its definition

When discussing Anti-racist ideology, many run into a conflict that they can’t seem to reconcile. “How can everyone be racist?” Of course, the term “racism” is at the center of the anti-racist movement, and our current understanding of the word begs this question. The Anti-Racist movement attempts to redefine the term. For an anti-racist, “racism” is used in reference to the power dynamic between White people and People of Color. Due to a monopoly on the institutions of power in western society — and those impacted by western nations through colonialism — it is white people’s responsibility to redistribute their social capital to establish racial equity. Failure to do so is to further the current unequal distribution of power, furthering the current system of white supremacy and, by extension, promoting racism. This is, of course, a much broader definition of racism that many people may fall into. At first glance, it may seem counterintuitive to “create” more racists, but it is necessary.

Before we go further, let’s understand the social construct of Whiteness and power.

Power refers to the social, economic, and political capital one has access to in society. Social power comes from the advantages gained from access to social institutions. These can be in the form of social clubs, personal and professional connections, and the representation of one’s identity in society. Economic capital refers to a group’s share of wealth and ease of access to wealth-establishing institutions. Primary expressions of this power are property ownership and access to lines of credit. But it also presents in institutions that are often inaccessible to those without wealth, such as higher education institutions and, in the United States, the healthcare institution. Political capital is the ability to affect the distribution of resources in one’s community.

For Whiteness, let’s understand that although Whiteness is linked to being white, it is not the same as the racial identity of “white.” Whiteness refers explicitly to the values, behaviors, and advantages that belong to those allowed to inhabit the primary positions of power in western society. It highlights that they were allowed to wield power in these institutions due to the color of their skin. Whiteness is also a worldview. It defines the ideologies those who have Whiteness adhere to — mainly because those who are permitted to wield and benefit from power in society will be more likely to develop a system of beliefs that preserve their access to power. It also shapes how those entitled to claim Whiteness view themselves and how they view others. It dictates the relationship they have towards others as well. Whiteness is relational and only exists as a relationship to other members of society that it defines — meaning its definition is constantly subject to change. Because who is allowed to be white is fluid and changes over time, Whiteness is not exclusively linked to “white” skin; those who have Whiteness can change what groups to accept as “white” and which ones to relegate to minority status. Lastly, I want to point out that Whiteness is named in this way because generally, those with white skin have been allowed to gatekeep access to power and therefore have been the primary benefactors of this new social construct in western society. Any group can hold the underlying concept behind Whiteness if they are the primary power holders in society.

So why do we need to redefine racism?

The historical definition of racism (prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people based on their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group) aligns with western ideals of fairness and meritocracy. Using this definition, civil rights advocates argued that racism was wrong because it is antithetical to western and enlightenment era principles. It spits in the face of the American dream that anyone can achieve greatness. It was this alignment that ultimately propelled the civil rights movement to success. That success was great, but unfortunately, the resulting view of racism wasn’t nuanced enough to accurately represent the racial hierarchy in a way that can achieve equity. Placing the racial construct in direct opposition to fairness and meritocracy implies that the only fair way forward is a way in which we could not consider race, meaning any discussion of issues surrounding race that may be best solved with solutions that were specific to the needs of a particular race were (falsely) maligned as racist. Viewing corrective policies through this lens of racism, meant we couldn't adequately address institutional racism that caused specific harm to one racial group, because we couldn’t create a policy that addressed race in an inclusive way, in the same previous policies used race to create policies in a discriminatory way. In effect, We didn't bring the same energy to address the issues that we used when creating them. This led to an insufficient solution, and an illusion that racism was being solved, when in fact we just couldn’t see it, or at least, couldn’t see how the problems that presented themselves to people of color were racist.

In order to address race-specific issues, we first needed to understand that these issues were due to vestiges of racism that were not only inherent in the systems and institutions that were created with racist intent but that due to the unequal power dynamic between racial groups, racism was also present in many social interactions between those with Whiteness and people of color. This form of racism was often masked in colorblind rhetoric and it was hard to call out these issues for what they were. By changing the definition to center the unequal distribution of power, we shift the onus of combating racism from racial groups with little power to those with the power in our society to make a change. This shift in the understanding of “racist” is an important evolution in our effort to combat racism. After the Civil Rights Movement, the country bought into the illusion of colorblindness, and the burden of dismantling racism was placed solely on people of color. With an improved definition and understanding of where the roots of racism lie, we can center systemic racism in any conversation surrounding race. In this effort to redefine, we exchange the idea of both individual harm and responsibility with that of collective good and responsibility. This allows us to distribute the burden to both identify and end racism among those in society who have the ability to affect the power dynamic, and call out those who fail to use their power in a way that benefits everyone equally. It also opens the conversation to understanding how a collective good can outweigh the needs of an individual or single racial group. This manifests as a rejection of individuality and fairness, but what that actually means deserves its own article.

How can everyone be racist? That is what it is saying, after all.

This new understanding doesn’t define everyone as racist, but it does mean more work is required not to be racist. Remember that Whiteness is inherently racist because it refers, in part, to the attribution of power based on skin color. It is also a socially constructed institution in which participation in all aspects is not required. As mentioned earlier, “Whiteness” is relational, and those who have the benefit of participating in “Whiteness” have a responsibility in changing the relationship “Whiteness” has to other groups, and to reject the beliefs and values that are harmful to other racial groups. Therefore, if the status quo of “Whiteness” is, by definition, racist; a person who is a part of the group that has the privilege of “Whiteness,” and chooses — either through action or inaction — to maintain that status quo, they are maintaining an unequal distribution of power between racial groups, and therefore active participants in racism. For a member of that group to not be racist they must take an active part in disrupting that status quo. By making a decision to use their power to disrupt racism, they become what Kendi calls an “anti-racist.”

Redefining racism in a way that reflects the power dynamic inherent in our current institutions allows us to it place the net benefit of race-based policies for the purpose of inclusion at the front of the conversation and assigns the responsibility of correcting racism to everyone who has the societal power to do so. While the old understanding of racism allowed us the insight to end legal racism, it was ill-equipped to combat racism outside of the legal system. We need to evolve our understanding of racism to combat the evolving social dynamics that hinder racial equity. The anti-racist’s and CRT’s new understanding of racism may help us get to that new understanding.

If you enjoyed this article, I do plan on expanding on this topic more and future articles can be read for free at https://itscaseyop.substack.com/.