Why Whoopi Goldberg’s Inflammatory Holocaust Remarks Are Not an Issue of Race or Racism

A Brit’s perspective. But what do I know, I’m just a teacher.

Whoopie Goldberg’s narrative reframing of the Holocaust as an act of white-on-white- aggression or “ man’s inhumanity to man” and not the result of racism is so interesting to me. And indicative of something deeper than the matter of race and racism, to which it pertains.

The Jerusalem Post chimed in the matter with a “ …wrong on holocaust, right on race”.

Ignoring the fact Goldberg’s statement is both wildly reductionist and omitting of motivating factors entirely to do with ethnicity, culminating in a deeply problematic interpretation of history. And, hermeneutics aside — I see Whoopi Goldberg’s particular discourse as yet another symptom of US-centrism. The implied belief, whether conscious or otherwise, that US cultural standards and experiences are preeminent and therefore somehow universally true.

Racism is a global issue. No doubt. My god does it look different in the US, than the UK. Nevermore so exemplified than during the shit-show that was 2020. Which forced the unspeakable horrors of the US’s racial inequality and injustice into the US public’s consciousness. The implications of which, rippled across the globe.

Here’s what I understand. The confluence of racism with an armed police force, the second amendment and neoliberalist politics — interact in a deeply nuanced way, leading to voids in social equity and justice that are specific to the US and the US alone.

And so the (implied) assertion, as propagated by US media dominance, that how racism looks in the US — is any way how it may look in other countries, is at best misguided. A worst, wilfully ignorant.

And it’s this sort of US-centrism which has fuelled the rhetoric Whoopi Goldberg has chosen to hang her coat on. The rhetoric being — an emerging definition of racism as solely specific to one race (White) subjugating another, (Black). I say emerging because it is antithetical to an historically-held and understood definition, which we can trace back at least to 1903 .

I’m not opposed to revisionism. Some things need to be absolute, however — the definition of the kind of dehumanisation which results from racial superiority — being one of them.

The origin of this emerging definition of racism is undeniably American. Recently evidenced by Merriam-Webster’s updated definition to include “systemic racism”. It goes on to explain “…specifically, white supremacy.“ I take no issue with the inclusion of systemic racism. I do though, with the limitation of racism to one group.

Apart from the problematic social construct that is ‘race’ (**reference included for it’s literature review of race research, rather than specific commentary) and equally problematic equating of race as solely to skin colour — embracing this definition of racism would require you to ignore humanity’s history of genocide.

From the Rwandan to the Bosnian and the ongoing Uyghur genocide, not to mention the Holocaust, no race has escaped its evils. Either as victim or perpetrator. While the outworking of the driving factors of genocide are complex — it isn’t too simple to state that genocide is the result of insidious racial superiority, and therefore racism. We can’t ignore the fact either, in these particular examples — both victim and perpetrator share the same skin colour. Racism, though it absolutely includes it, is not limited to the realm of differences of skin colour.

Humanity’s history exemplifies the absurdity of this US-centrist definition. We do a disservice to everyone affected by the evils of racism, to allow it to go unquestioned.

Language matters. For a million reasons. Here’s the most relevant — social Science Researcher Dr. Brene Brown discovered language is essential to our sense-making and processing of emotions.

“ Language doesn’t just communicate emotions, it shapes what you’re feeling.”

When we limit language, we limit our ability to navigate and heal from our pain.

The emerging definition of racism denies millions the validation and expression of their experiences. To deny their reality and experience is nothing less than gaslighting. If we’re going to shift the definition of racism — an egregious error — then we’d better be prepared for the inevitable fallout.

Whoopi Goldberg’s Holocaust interpretation is an early warning sign. The beginning tremors of a Tsunami of unintended consequence of an ideological reframing. From harmful-yet-well-intentioned policy and disenfranchised populations (e.g. those excluded by the definition) to, and most worryingly of all, the potential repeating of history.

I’ll end with this. Even if the Holocaust were an example of man’s inhumanity to man — how can we separate racism from inhumanity? Surely racism is an example of just how inhumane we can be.