Summary

The article critiques the redefinition of racism as "prejudice plus power" by white liberals, contrasting it with Malcolm X's broader view of racism as a universal evil, and questions the contemporary relevance and implications of this redefinition in light of changing social dynamics and power structures.

Abstract

The article on the undefined website challenges the popular definition of racism as "prejudice plus power," which was proposed by white liberal Pat Bidol and later popularized by Judith H. Katz. This definition suggests that only white people can be racist due to their societal power. The author argues that this theory is flawed, citing examples of powerful individuals of color and the lack of power among certain white groups. The article references Malcolm X's perspective on racism as the inability of people to live together in unity, emphasizing that he criticized racial prejudice from any group. The author also points out the commercialization of anti-racism movements by predominantly white figures who profit from diversity training and literature, such as Judith Katz, Peggy McIntosh, Tim Wise, and Robin DiAngelo. The article suggests that their approach to anti-racism is superficial and self-serving, as it ignores the complexity of power dynamics in society. It concludes by questioning the continued use of a definition that may have been more relevant during the Jim Crow era, in today's context where people of all races hold positions of power.

Opinions

The author disagrees with the redefinition of racism as "prejudice plus power," arguing it is too simplistic and ignores the complexity of racial dynamics.
Malcolm X's definition of racism is presented as more comprehensive, focusing on the lack of unity among people due to racial prejudices.
The article criticizes the commercial anti-racism movement, suggesting that it profits from a superficial understanding of racism and prevents deeper analysis.
The author believes that the notion that only white people can be racist is outdated and irrelevant in the face of shifting power structures and the presence of influential people of color.
The article implies that the current discourse on racism, led by white figures in the anti-racism industry, may not adequately address the needs or experiences of all racial groups.
It is suggested that discussions on race should be more nuanced, acknowledging that anyone can exhibit racist attitudes and actions, regardless of their race or societal position.

Why Race Reductionists Love a White Woman’s Idea that Racism is Power Plus Prejudice and Ignore Malcolm X’s

This was Malcolm X’s definition of racism:

“To me the earth’s most explosive and pernicious evil is racism, the inability of God’s creatures to live as One.” — Malcolm X, The Autobiography of Malcolm X

Like everyone in his day, he knew that racism is prejudice based on race. That’s why he criticized black racists after he left the Nation of Islam:

“I totally reject Elijah Muhammad’s racist philosophy, which he has labeled ‘Islam’ only to fool and misuse gullible people, as he fooled and misused me. But I blame only myself, and no one else for the fool that I was, and the harm that my evangelic foolishness in his behalf has done to others.” —Malcolm X

But five years after his death, a white liberal, Pat Bidol, redefined racism in Developing New Perspectives on Race: “racism = prejudice + power”. Another white liberal, Judith H. Katz, popularized that equation in White Awareness: Handbook for Anti-Racism Training. Bidol’s theory is that everyone is prejudiced, but only white people can be racist because racism requires prejudice plus power, and people of color do not have power in a racist society.

The problem with her theory is people like Condoleeza Rice, Oprah Winfrey, and Kimberlé Crenshaw have far more power than most people of any hue in the USA. Ron Kozar noted that by Bidol’s definition, “American Nazis aren’t racists, since they have no power.”

In “An Examination of Anti-Racist and Anti-Oppressive Theory and Practice in Social Work Education”, Marie Macey and Eileen Moxon wrote:

…an edifice of theory and action has been constructed on the simplistic ‘explanation’ of racism as being the outcome of power plus prejudice. Not only does this inaccurately assume a single cause and type of racism but it dangerously implies that there is a single solution to the phenomenon (Gilroy 1990; Husband, 1987; Miles, 1989).

The view that racism is an attribute of the monolithic category of people termed ‘white’ who hold all the power in society is equally confused and confusing. At one level of abstraction, it is true that a certain sector of the (white, male) population holds much of the economic and decision-making power in British society. It is also true that some members of this group are statistically likely to be racially prejudiced. However, though this knowledge should inform social work education, it has limited utility at the operational level of social work or, often, in the everyday lives of black and white service workers.

Furthermore, if a Pakistani Muslim male refuses to have an African-Caribbean or Indian Hindu female social worker for reasons which, if articulated by a white Christian would be condemned as racist, one has to ask what the point is of denying that this refusal stems from racist (or sexist or sectarian) motivations? Similarly, if one compares the structural position of a white, working class, homeless male with that of a black barrister, would the statement that ‘only whites have power’ make sense or be acceptable to either of them?

…the approaches [of anti-racism theory] are theoretical and thus closed to the canons of scientific evaluation and because the discourse itself prohibits the open, rigorous and critical interrogation which is essential to theoretical, professional and personal development.”

Contemporary anti-racism is a commercial movement promoted by graduates of the US’s most expensive private schools. Many of them, like Pat Bidol, are white people who make their living promoting anti-racism theory:

Judith Katz is the Executive Vice President of the Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group, a business specializing in diversity training.

Peggy McIntosh, author of “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”, is the associate director of the Wellesley Centers for Women at Wellesley College.

Tim Wise, a graduate of Tulane, lectures at “over 400 college campuses, including Harvard, Stanford, and the Law Schools at Yale, Columbia, and Vanderbilt.” In one of his youtube videos, he claimed he was doing what black speakers could not, but black speakers have been popular at universities for decades. The idea that black speakers could not speak about race today is as silly as the title of one of his books, Speaking Treason Fluently. When polls show the great majority of Americans support racial diversity, a better title would be Speaking Truisms Profitably.

And do I need to tell you about Robin DiAngelo?

People like Wise, Katz, McIntosh, and DiAngelo mean well, but they content themselves with a superficial understanding of injustice. My favorite Upton Sinclair quote applies: “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

The idea that only white people could be racist made some sense during the age of Jim Crow. Does it today?

Carol Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, suggested, “We need to rethink what is racist and who can legitimately call whom racist. With a black president, a black attorney general, and blacks holding various power positions around the country, now might be a time when we can concede that anyone can express attitudes and actions that others can justifiably characterize as racist.”

“Hating people because of their color is wrong. And it doesn’t matter which color does the hating. It’s just plain wrong.” ―Muhammad Ali

Why the Black Elite Wants to Talk about Race instead of Class