Yes, I Pray for the Day When All of Us Can Be Racist.

Say Whaaaat?

Sometimes a response to the inquisitive reader turns out to be better and more explanatory than the story itself, and this is one of those occurrences.

I present to you John (not his real name). John claims to be an attorney who works in government and who fancies himself as a “white liberal intellectual.”

John centers his perception on a perspective of whiteness and thus does not or cannot understand what racism is.

In the current example, I am responding to a question presented by John, who is perplexed or befuddled by my statement that “if Blacks can be racist too, then the shared equity Blacks have with whites on the Racial Hierarchy can only render a biological-genetic predisposition in Black people to explain sustained racial group disparities.”

The articles in question are:

and:

The “Lie: Part 2” details the origins of racial pseudo-science and how it has been used to validate the Racial Hierarchy and justify a corresponding identity of white supremacy. The “Cannot Be Racist” article describes the biological-genetic predisposition proposal.

After reading “The Lie” article and summarizing the second one for John in a previous encounter, John posed the following response and question (unedited):

“I completely agree with the conclusion — we are one species. And I don’t think it makes very much sense to be proud of something that one didn’t appreciate some positive factors. So it’s quite true that we all have an African origin. Although my more recent ancestors were mostly from Europe, I particularly appreciate my African heritage because this is very long indeed and is where evolution sculpted us into the amazingly capable creatures we now are. (I also appreciate my primate heritage; we have great vision, dexterity, and curiosity, among other things, thanks to our primary heritage.)

The subdivision of extant humans into “races” was, in the past, the result of some extremely motivated thinking, as you point out, and contains a lot of history of atrociously inhumane treatment. Genetically, none of the divisions are clear, as groups never maintained sharp boundaries between each other. Inasmuch as there are regional genotypic differences by lineage, “white” is a race, “east Asian” is a race, “indigenous American” is a race, and “black” is at least a half dozen different races each at least as different as the previous ones are from each other. And even given these genetic differences by lineage, individual genetic differences still are larger than these group-based ones.

So if you put biology first, not supremacy, although there are biological correlates of some of our labels of “race,” it makes little sense to use that information for anything significant because it just doesn’t predict very much. So, luckily, biology has made things easy for us: we don’t have huge gulfs in capability between human subspecies that force us to really confront what we mean by “human” and just how deeply we hold values of compassion and mutual help vs. hatred and self-interest. We don’t have subspecies. We’re on easy mode.

However, your argumentation is, at best, very hard to follow.

You give multiple examples of the following form: racist “white” person studies X; claims to have discovered Y; person concludes it is okay to mistreat “blacks.” Quite awful.

But how does this have anything to do with whether blacks having the capacity to be racist means that “the position of shared equity on the racial hierarchy with Whites can only render a biological-genetic predisposition to explain all of their relative disparities”? The two things don’t have anything to do with each other. You can be racist for all sorts of reasons; you don’t have to decide that society gives the perfectly just reflection of our genetic predispositions. You could decide to be racist against group G because “G’s are dumb,” or because “G’s are immoral,” or because “G’s are always mean to us,” or any number of other reasons. These are attitudes, feelings. They’re not truth. They don’t determine why there might be a disparity on average between members of group G and those of group H.

So I don’t see any danger at all in recognizing that individual racism can be expressed by people of whatever race, so long as it’s true and we know what we mean by those words. I also don’t see any danger at all in recognizing that institutional racism can be expressed by any institution of sufficient power and in any direction — though, of course, we should have no illusions about what direction it goes in the United States.

We can be prejudiced against each other for all sorts of reasons based on whatever boxes we categorize each other into: politics, race, geography, sports team affiliation, eye color, culture, whatever. We can always invent a genetic or neurological basis — look at the studies about differences between Republicans and Democrats. Heck, the basis might even be true. That doesn’t mean that it’s okay to be horrible to each other.

That’s the real danger: deciding that the relatively modest and/or imagined and/or arbitrary differences that humans have with each other are cause for treating some people really badly. We might, at different points in history, draw the lines differently: if you are European but not Jewish, are Jews white? If you are San in Namibia, are Bantus on your side, or are you the “other”?

We are all African. And we all have the propensity to draw distinctions that are not fundamental and conclude that we should treat each other as enemies. An ongoing challenge, and one I hope we succeed at, is to tame our tribal instinct and embrace the overwhelming amount that we share.

My response to John:

Thank you for your analysis and response. Yes, we are all of African heritage. So why then the sustained state of disparity along the lines of skin color? If Blacks can be racist too, then why aren’t the groups socially, economically, financially, residentially, educationally, and resourcefully equivalent? What supports the sustained group disparity? Is racism a form of Black supremacy in action?

I understand your concerns, and you are certainly not alone in that regard. You are here because I believe that you are sincerely trying to understand and learn something. And I appreciate that. That’s a good thing. So (and I mean this in the kindest and light-hearted way), forget everything you think you know about race, pull up a seat, sit down, relax, open your mind and learn. Read very carefully because this is the only time I will do this for anyone outside of the academic setting. Consider this your private lesson, free of charge (minus the Medium subscription, of course).

You stated that I give “multiple examples of the following form: racist “white” person studies X; claims to have discovered Y; person concludes it is okay to mistreat “blacks.” Quite awful.” (ibid). Then you pose the question: “how does this (i.e., pseudo-science; my note) have anything to do with whether blacks having the capacity to be racist means that the position of shared equity on the racial hierarchy with Whites can only render a biological-genetic predisposition to explain all of their relative disparities”? (ibid).

John, several things are here. First, you have introduced an extraneous variable or premise into the discussion. The premise of the discussion is not “whether Blacks having the capacity to be racist means that ….” The premise is “if Blacks can be racist too, then the sustained disparities can only render a biological-genetic predisposition.” Logistically, the pseudo-science you summarize doesn’t “mean” a biologic-genetic predisposition, rather, the pseudo-science “supports” a narrative for a biologic-genetic predisposition.

Second, if Blacks enjoyed a position of shared equity on the Racial Hierarchy, then there would be no relative disparity between the groups. Racism would work for everyone, and there wouldn’t even be a Racial Hierarchy, right? If we examine the logic of the counter-argument that Black people are on the same level on the Racial Hierarchy as white people, then what else is offered to explain the group disparity that persists? What does the pseudo-science you just read about that supports the Racial Hierarchy, say about Black people? What is the explanation offered? If Blacks can be “racist too” yet remain relatively disparate, then what else is there to explain the sustained disparity? I know you are distinguishing between individual behavior, but I’ll get to that.

So let’s go deeper. I want to make sure you get your money’s worth.

First, a little background. Let’s be clear:

The election and presidency of Barack Obama supported a false perception held by some of a post-racial America. But we know that’s not the case. Right? The social construct of a Racial Hierarchy remains well intact. Would you agree?

The vernacular of race is confusing to many because we are all indoctrinated with the Racial Hierarchy without recognizing it. It is invisible to us. How often is it even referenced in discussions about racial matters?

The article you read, “The Lie: Part 2”, describes the creation of the pseudo-science that has been used to justify and validate the Racial Hierarchy social construct. Not only does it justify treating Black people “horribly,” as I believe you would put it, but it also creates a narrative to explain sustained group disparity. Got it? The pseudo-science says that even with everything being equal, black bodies will still be disadvantaged because of their biology or their genetics. So, for example, Black people will never derive benefit from “social programs” designed to eliminate group disparity because their genetics will continue to hold them back no matter what. When we say that Blacks or nonwhites “can be racist too,” we confuse the language of the Racial Hierarchy because we are saying that we are all equal on the hierarchy. But we know that’s not the case. The day when we can all be “racist” is the day when group disparity has been eliminated. We’re not there yet.

You are equating malevolent treatment towards each other with something you call “individual racism.” That by itself is not racism. Treating each other horribly is not racism or racist unless the mistreatment is due to an identity that has enabled a belief that one is racially superior. You have to identify with the social construct that was created for you for your acts to be racist. As a non-white, I can only assimilate the identity of a superior social order that was specifically legislated for you, as a white person, to enjoy and take advantage of.

I can certainly act racist, but I cannot be racist. The social construct was not created for me to have an advantage over others. While you have genuine power, I can only borrow it. We can all choose what to identify with. But if you, a white body, choose to identify with a social construct of superior order created specifically for you, then you have chosen an identity that is psychologically pathological by its design; you have chosen an identity created specifically for bodies grouped and labeled as “white,” hence, you have chosen a “racist” identity, and that identity informs your pattern of behavior and your beliefs when interacting with non-whites.

Yes, anyone can be a bigot or prejudiced, but racism is a product of power, greed and control over an individual or group of people distinguished by skin color.

But what you describe in your examples are not racism.

If I discriminate against you because you have blonde hair and blue eyes, and for whatever reason, I don’t like people with those features, that’s not racism. If I don’t like my neighbor because I like the Mets and he likes the Yankees, that’s not racism (I’m sure you know that, but I’m just illustrating a point). A person can only be racist if they identify with the social construct of a racial (i.e., skin color) superiority. What this means is that racist behavior at the individual level corresponds with or reflects a specific identity. It is an identity imbued with the manufactured social construct of a Racial Hierarchy that enables the patterned behavior. And of course, before that, one must identify with the social construct of race itself. But why was this social construct created in the first place? And further, why the need to legislate it? Why the need to create artificial science to support and validate this manufactured construct? What is the behavioral impact of the construct on the group that has received the message from birth, of a superior identity? That’s why racism is white supremacy in action. It is the result of identification with a construct manufactured for a specific purpose. It is a construct specifically created for the sole purpose of extracting wealth by legislating free labor from and dehumanizing of a group of people distinguished by skin color. It made white bodies complacent and black bodies disparate.

This is why a racial identity is a pathological identity; having a “racial” identity corresponds to a social construct that legitimizes the dehumanization of Black people in every way imaginable. Claiming that Black bodies are “racist too” or that “anyone can be racist” is the same as saying that Blacks and everyone else have shared equity on the Racial Hierarchy, but wouldn’t that be antithetical to the purpose and creation of the Racial Hierarchy itself? It was not created for Black bodies or any nonwhite bodies to be equal to white bodies, correct? And further, if Blacks are equal to whites in terms of the social construct of race (Racial Hierarchy) then how else could you explain sustained group disparity? You can only conclude that there is something inherently deficient about having darker skin; that it must be due to genetics. Do you understand? If black and white are equal on the racial construct, then what else is left to explain the sustained disparity?

You can’t have it both ways; you can’t claim that Black people “can be racist too” and at the same time refute a position of biological-genetic inferiority in Black people to explain ongoing societal disparity. Which one is it? If Blacks can be “racist too,” then where’s the parity? And further, why is there no parity? Well, it must be because of genetic inferiority. Right? I mean, if Blacks can be racist too (that is, Blacks have a shared position with whites on the Racial Hierarchy social construct) then what else is left to explain their societal predisposition?

We are discussing a construct that has only been around for little over 400 years. That’s a drop in the bucket relative to how long we humans have been interacting with each other throughout our history. We are not equivalent as the group disparity continues, and it will remain until the hierarchy is truly dismantled. Only then will we be able to proclaim that “anyone can be racist.” Hell, I wish that were true because when we get to the point where just anyone can be “racist,” then you know what, there won’t be any more racism. That doesn’t mean there still won’t be bigotry and prejudice and ignorance and all those other human fetters, but racism? No.

Yes, anyone can be bigoted and prejudiced but racism is a one-way street because it corresponds to a specific legislated construct, supported by fake science, that conditions behavior in the designated “white group” who identify with it. Beyond individuals, it also informs media and other institutions which act and serve to preserve it.

When you think of “holocaust” what do you think of?

When you think of “genocide” what do you think of?

But when you think of “racism” what do you think of?

Why is racism so ambiguous?

Why has the concept become so diluted?

Why so much contrived fear over teaching something that would armor the next generation with the tools to dismantle a hierarchy of evil (i.e., Racial Hierarchy)?

If we are to be truly progressive in dismantling the Racial Hierarchy, then we must pay particular attention to the language of the hierarchy. We must not become confused. It is not a hierarchy of “horrible treatment” from anybody to just anybody; it is a Racial Hierarchy that supersedes a particular form and direction of horrible treatment.

When we make the error of confusing the vernacular of race and start claiming that anyone can be racist, then we dilute the focus of attack; it draws attention away from dismantling the Racial Hierarchy for the betterment of mankind and civilization and essentially allows this most evil construct to continue exerting its will, power, influence and control over all of us. We breathe life into the Racial Hierarchy when we confuse the vernacular as something else.

Yes, I pray for the day when all of us can be “racist” for that would be the day when the perversion of a Racial Hierarchy construct has been dismantled and eliminated; reduced to an unusual belief in human history.

Hopefully this helps to clear things up for you, and I Thank you again for your indulgence.

Thank you for reading

© 2022 Andrew P. Brown III, PhD. All rights reserved.