Yesterday
Armando continued his criticism of Larry Summers and continued his call to arms over racism and sexism. I salute his efforts, and I am equally glad to see this community jumping in outrage at folks like Larry Summers. In his diary Armando made it clear that in his view the worst sinners of all are the enablers. He spoke of Sully's weak defense of Summers remarks and alluded to similarly absurd arguments from others; the so-called standard deviation argument now being used by today's pop-male Chauvinists, for example. Again I salute Armando in this endeavor. The enablers are far more wicked, far more sophisticated, and far more deadly than any sole, stupid, statement. They seek to make the weaker argument the stronger. They seek to legitimate the status quo at the expense of women and other minorities. They offend the good, and rape right reason, to the point where their subtleties no longer mask their barbarous convictions. Afterall, Jimmy the Greek taught us all this lesson long ago.
I bring up Jimmy the Greek because he was a buffoon, a comic figure doing tragic things. He lost his job after he suggested that the superior strength, speed, and stamina of African-American athletes was attributable to the selection methods used by their masters during slavery in the US. I bring this up because firstly, I find it interesting that once again, women get the short-end of the stick: Larry Summers is still gainfully employed. I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise, the nineteenth amendment was ratified sixty-three years after the fifteenth. In sixty-three years, Larry Summers will likely be dead. But it is interesting to note nonetheless. Secondly, no matter how absurd the Greek's teachings may seem to us now, even the Greek had his enablers. They are always around.
Richard Cohen was one such evil enabler. He was the "house liberal of the Washington Post" at the time, or at least that is what Professor Barbara Jeanne Fields called him, and I consider it an apt description. In her essay, "Race, Slavery, and Ideology in the United States of America" New Left Review 181 (May/June 1990): 95-118 Prof. Fields does more than throw around the "L" word. She also does a quick and tidy job of debunking any "objective" construct such as race. She places these concepts in their proper subjective place alongside societal rituals, customs, and mythology. Indeed, she states clearly enough for me, and I hope for the rest of this community, that race is a myth.
Of course philosophy never convinced a man of anything other than his own ignorance. So even today many agree that objective proof of race may still be found. I must confess here, I've looked long and hard. It isn't found in genetics as the scientists running the Human Genome project announced there is no gene for race. Perhaps we'll find it under that standard deviation somewhere? Can't tell for sure. What I can tell you though is that a simple thought experiment should be enough to debunk the notion of race once and for all.
When selecting subjects for an experiment where the hypothesis is that race innately exists, how does one assign the subjects to a particular race without "assuming the very racial distinction the experiment is supposed to prove?" (again, quoting from Prof. Fields)
In case you're still thinking about that, it has been tried, unsuccessfully and to the embarrassment of most racist scientists from the early twentieth century. Race is a myth. It doesn't exist. Today's contemporary racist scientists, such as there are, searched high and low for a sequence of genes which could provide for objectification, there are none. The thought experiment above proves the irresistible nature of race, it is a myth, and like all myths race is ultimately a product of choice.
I hope this diary will serve as a counterpoint to Armando's. Yes, racism is still an issue. But it is a spiritual issue, not an actual one. Yes race exists, but only insofar as we choose to let it exist. The genetic and scientific truths of race have still yet to be incorporated into our own customary language. If we can begin to speak in a way which accurately depicts what race is, I assert we will begin to move beyond the issue. Talking about race is exactly like talking about belief, because that is all that race is, belief. I propose we become the party that doesn't believe in race anymore. We should be the party that asserts that race is not. We have nothing to lose here: the truth is on our side. History is unfolding to that truth, lets not become the high priests and priestesses of a dying religion.
UPDATE: I'm going to try to dispel a notion which appears to have developed out of my own poor writing. I am not advocating a position whereby we ignore the historical force "race" "racism" etc. There appear to be two ways to think about race then. One, the way I guess most people view it, which is that race is a genetic or quasi-genetic trait. Two, the way it seems like a majority of Kossacks view it, that race is a social construct.
The argument I attempt to make, and perhaps only make clumsily, is that speaking about race in the same traditional sense, that is, in the way we have always spoken about it, or if you prefer, in the "normal" way we grew up with and without any disclaimers is a type of enabling which racists use to our collective disadvantage. We perpetuate the myth by addressing the myth on real terms.
The very real consequences of racial ideology in America are just that, very real. But if we focus solely, or even mostly, on the ideological aspect of the race issue, we don't deal with the very real consequences. For example then, we discuss the disproportionate impact of Katrina on African Americans, but we don't discuss poverty. That is, we discuss racial ideology, not its consequences. Some do. John Edwards bravely has. But all too often we concede the very ideology we are so desperately trying to combat. I hope that clarifies. If not, just let me know.