Demystifying 'Racism'

In the comments for my last post, a couple claims were made that Rosalind Kurita is a racist. I'd like to first share an anecdote that I believe invaluable on this issue and then to present a complex question on which I'd like to read all of your thoughts.

Is Rosalind racist?

The one political conversation I've held with Rosalind was about school vouchers. We both like the intention of that movement and we explored the Swedish model together, which ensures equality while ensuring choice. Rosalind voiced two objections to it, one of which had not occured to me.

First, she spoke my objection: schools in the poorest neighborhoods would be closed, leaving the poor, a majority of whom are often a racial minority, with more of a burden than we started with. (Note that No Child Left Behind actually leaves behind schools in the poorest neighborhoods).

But then she talked about transportation. No proposal yet has come up with a way to ensure equality of opportunity and diversity. She went on at length about how the driving force behind America is the public school system because it brings different races, creeds, and economic classes together. She said that the future of America depends on keeping that diverse experience intact.

This was a casual conversation; there were no media representatives and I was already an admited supporter. This was long before I even thought about blogging.

Rosalind believes that ethnic and racial diversity are key lynchpins in the idea, strength, and spirit of America. In my opinion, it's quite hard to sustain a charge of racism against someone with that core belief.

What has 'Racism' come to mean?

I get confused in the conversations the Left has amongst itself. Anymore, we look and act like a loose-knit collection of liberal interest groups. Conservatives do not get hung up on these kinds of heated divisions, I hate to see us divided this way. I'd like to explore the issue of what our view of race and racial relations ought to be.


First, I'd like to dispel the myth that a member of a racial minority cannot be a racist. Coming into the 2006 senate race, I feared that a racism charge would appear for the simple reason that Harold Ford, Junior is the only black candidate. Somehow, for we empathetic folks that seems to create a basis for the charge before any other candidate says a word. But Rosalind is of mixed ethnicity (I believe her mother was Asian, if I am not mistaken). Does this suddenly change everything? I can'ty see why it would. So, from the outset, I'd like to do away with the naive and baseless idea that the subject's being a race other than white eliminates the questions of racism.

In that light.... Since this charge was leveled by admitted Harold Ford supporters and obviously they do not consider him to be racist, I'd like to explore the nature of that evaluation:

- Harold Ford, Junior is a member of the Black Caucus. To my best recollection, the Black Caucus determines membership elligibility based on a subjective evaluation of the melanin in the applicant's skin.

- Harold went to Michigan using affirmative action, after growing up with a massive economic and social advantage over most of the American population. When that program was challenged in court, Harold stuck by it on principle. He thus held that the appearance of melanin in the skin and/or the existence of distant African origin should result in favoritism over others with different melanin content and heritage.

Now, let's offer a definition:

rac·ism n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

I'd like to see what everyone thinks. What is 'racist'?

Is the very existence of the Black Caucus racist? Our instinct is to say 'no' because we hold in common the values of fairness and responsibility. But give it serious thought. Is it justified by the idea that the Congress is essentially the White Caucus? If so, should we accept as legitmate a Left-handed Caucus and a Caucus for people who don't like Chinese food? What about a Cat-Owner's Caucus? How about a Caucus for Reps from the states furthest from DC? Where are the boundaries? Do we move the goalposts whenever it suits our present needs?

What about affirmative action? Should we accept that race and not economic status is the best criterion for specialized treatment? Shoudl we apply the same idea to social programs and deny poor white people food stamps because they are 'advantaged' but allow wealthy minorities to get food stamps because they are 'disadvantaged'? Does the criteria make sense? If not, how does it differ from the way we currently use affirmative action?

Do we identify by our race first? Ignoring the sexual attraction aspect, in a room full of diverse people, who do we gravitate toward? People with the same religion? People with the same race? People with the same political affiliation? People with the same values? People who appear to belong to a certain economic class? People who like our favorite brand of soft drink or beer? What is your most basic identity? What does this say about the divisions among special interest groups on the Left?

I do not claim to have the answers in the least. I think it follows from our valuing diversity that a spectrum of differing opinions is a good thing. But I'd like to remove the taboo from this topic and ask what we think and feel when we actually hold these things out for examination. What are your heart and head telling you?