Discover more from A Frayed Mind
New Age Bigotry
The recently, and ever growing acceptable form of bigotry
Until recently, it was understood that all forms of bigotry was unacceptable. Although not everyone was on board, it was something the majority of society strived for and made incremental changes towards. The reasonable goal was removing all forms of discrimination and minimising historical effects against individuals.
Was this goal ever actuated? According to studies, discrimination has been on the steady decline for many decades now. It was, and never will be, fully removed. This is due to, amongst other things, pattern recognition being built into us by evolution. You can read my post about this here:
If we can make the social cost of being racist high enough, and ensure there’s no laws or rules that target one race over another, then we’re doing a good job to minimise the effects of bigotry. Remember there can be two sorts of bigotry, one is rooted in the individual, the other in the rules and laws of society.
Unfortunately, in recent years our understanding that all discrimination is wrong started to change. Some groups have become the target of discrimination and prejudice, usually stoked by those who proclaim to be the most against this. Their claims of ‘anti-racism’ is merely a façade in order to be racist.
These people will claim it’s not okay to say ‘Muslims are terrorists’ or ‘black people are criminals’, but in the same breath will condemn me, and everyone who looks like me as ‘colonisers’, ‘rapists’ or ‘devils’. I take the high road and say all the aforementioned examples are unacceptable.
The common defence of this is ‘if it doesn’t apply to you, then you shouldn’t feel attacked’. Which sounds reasonable on the surface. When the claim ‘men are rapists’ comes out, I’m not a rapist, therefore I should know this statement does not apply to me. Okay, but are we allowed to use this line of reasoning when it comes to other groups? What’s wrong with saying ‘Muslims are terrorists’? The billions of Muslims who aren’t violent terrorists shouldn’t be bothered when this statement is made.
The reason we find it unacceptable is because it sounds like a blanket statement that applies to all Muslims. Even though ‘all’ is never mentioned. Without providing a caveat such as ‘some’, or ‘a percentage’, it doesn’t look like you’re speaking with nuance. Or even attempting to. It sounds like you’re painting everyone with the same brush. Bigotry.
I don’t think we should dismiss the feelings of any person by patting them on the shoulder and condescendingly saying, “if it doesn’t apply to you, then you shouldn’t complain.”
When a comment is made about white people, swap it with any minority group and see if it comes off as racist. If it does sound racist, it probably is.
As Douglas Murray says:
‘If you said there is no good form of blackness - none, and don’t ever try to stop being black because you can’t, you can’t get out of it. You’d go “WOW, that’s a racist, that’s a big racist right there”. Well it’s racist when they do it about white people as well. If you took what is now said about white people in America, Britain and elsewhere, and said it about any other group, you would be regarded rightly as a racist.’
Everyone should care and stand up when white people are being discriminated against. Not only because it’s right thing to do, but because that’s the best way to get them on your side. If black people don’t care when white people are being discriminated against, why should white people care when the discrimination goes the other way?
The power of reciprocation is a powerful, often underestimated force.
Does this mean that we should only care when white people are the victim of racist attacks? Of course not. You can do both. There’s no need to have such a black and white view of the world (pun intended). Let’s work together to stamp out what we all know to be wrong. Collaboratively.
I will push back against racism towards white people, sexism towards men and bigotry towards any group, whether they’re perceived to be ‘in power’ or not. I expect others to do the same.
How did bigotry against certain groups become acceptable again?
The Dishonesty Begins to Show
We all know what racism is. It’s being prejudiced against someone based on their race. If a person is physically attacked because of their skin tone, it’s racism. If a couple is denied a house because of their skin colour, it’s racism.
However, a new type of definition began creeping into the mainstream, originating where all bad ideas start - academia. They shifted the definition from an individual and systemic focus into only systemic issues. It was no longer enough to just be prejudice to be called racist. Racism is now prejudice + power. The ‘power’ part is now a requirement.
You see, according to this new definition, an individual can only be racist if they are the same skin colour of those who are perceived to be in power in that country. I’ll give an example.
*A black man attacked by white people in America - Racist.
A white man attacked by black people in America - Not racist.
Going by the definition that racism = prejudice + power, means that the above statements are true. By this way of thinking, racism is defined not entirely by the actions of the individuals, but also by their geographical location. So therefore:
A black man attacked by white people in Uganda - Not racist.
A white man attacked by black people in Uganda - Racist.
Since white people do not hold institutional power in Uganda, they therefore cannot be racist. This is the logic that I see used constantly. However, logic is not their strong suit. They will exhaust themselves jumping through all the hoops during their mental gymnastic routine claiming that black people are not in power in Uganda so it’s not racism when a white man is attacked. We are not playing with honest actors here.
*These examples are based on if the reason for the attack was because of the colour of their skin. Of course someone of a different race can be attacked and it not be racist.
Yes. This person is unironically calling for the genocide of white people. And what is one of the top replies when pointing out this abhorrent racism?
If calling for the “total erasure” of a race isn't racism. I don’t know what is. Let’s see why these people feel permitted to confidently say such racist things in public.
There are a couple of justifications I hear when people want to excuse their racism towards white people. The first is, by definition, it is impossible. The definition they use cannot be applied to black people. One must wield institutional power in order to be considered racist. They focus only on institutional racism, and ignore racism at an individual level.
Changing definitions is slimy tactics. If the actions are the same, who cares what it’s called? It gets us nowhere.
It seems impossible for these people to take the stance that all discrimination is wrong. The reason for them wanting to hold these double standards is they want an excuse to be hateful.
They want to be racist, without the label of ‘racist’.
An actual reason that doesn’t involve linguistic gymnastics, is black people in the past and as a collective, have had it worse than white people. Now, I’m not one to go back through history and create an oppression spreadsheet on Excel, because whatever the results are… That doesn’t excuse current day racism. It was wrong back then and it’s wrong now.
Renown racist and race hustler Ibram X. Kendi claims current day discrimination is necessary to make up for past discrimination.
Because some people that looked like me hurt others in the past, I need to be hurt today - and this somehow makes things right? There is no concept of forgiveness. They view it as a zero sum game - for one group to succeed, another must fail.
This doesn’t sound like equality does it?
This is revenge.
Do you see where this kind of thinking leads? It’s division. Hatred. Tribalism. You should feel angered by this. It’s pitting one person against another on nothing but their immutable characteristics. Should we really be punishing people for the sins of their fathers? (Or rather, sins of people who look like their ancestors?)
I don’t see myself as an ultra progressive person. Mostly because I am repulsed by what it does to their thought process. In my world view, any discrimination is wrong. Painting any group of people with a broad brush because of a minority is wrong. For these ultra progressives, it’s not only acceptable, but a moral necessity. Which weirdly enough, would make me more progressive than those who claim to be the most progressive.
I Must be Upset
When I push back against racism towards whites, or sexism towards men, I’m accused of being upset, of ‘white tears’, or some other racially insensitive insult. The truth is, if someone tries to make me feel bad for being white, I laugh it off. Skin colour is such an arbitrary thing to be proud or ashamed of. You are not going to make me feel bad because of an immutable characteristic of mine. I will judge people as individuals, and only ask that I am treated the same.
Call me a mayo monkey or a white gorilla all you want. I choose to not let these racist words have power over me.
I’m not upset or hurt that there are people out there who hate me for my skin tone. There will always be racists.
I’m more upset that these people think that it’s acceptable to be bigoted at all and the hypocrisy that comes with it. Screaming that it’s not okay to be racist towards one race while simultaneously being extremely racist towards another.
Either none of it is okay, or all of it is okay. I am in the camp that none of it is. How about you?