Eric Holder said that we are "essentially a nation of cowards" when it comes to racial questions. When I first heard this it had a certain ring of truthiness to it that I couldn't deny. OK. I'll admit it, I'm a coward. I'm afraid of engaging in discussions on racial issues of substance because I'm afraid of being unjustly labled a racist. Fear of my own ignorance, a misunderstanding or even a legitimate difference of opinion has in the past prevented me from participating in discussions of an issue I feel is important. The silly thing is I've never even been called a racist and I'm a little bit at a loss in trying to rationalize my fear.
How Offensive is the Term "Racist"?
If you are merely considering how offensive an insult is there are several perspectives. One is how offensive would something be to an observer. This is a perfectly valid point of view but offers little insight. A far more relevent question is how offensive is an insult to the person being insulted. How much would it unbalance their emotional state, effect their behavior or influence their judgement? I'm not particularly concerned about how much it would hurt their feelings.
The few times I've seen a white man call a black man a nigger I was deeply offended. I'm even offended when I see young black men calling each other niggers. Perhaps some people are even offended that I used the word "nigger" instead of saying "the n-word". But the few times someone has called me a nigger I was more puzzled than offended since I'm white. Fag? It would be like water off a duck's back as I'm not at all insecure about my sexuality. These insults just don't have much emotional traction with me. I'm not trying to minimize how offensive they are to others just making the point that they aren't particularly offensive to me --when I'm the one being insulted-- and that this is independent of how offensive I find them as an observer.
For me personally, I can conceive of no insult worse than being called a racist. I'm sure some are snickering to themselves since "racist" just doesn't have any emotional traction with them. Fine. To me, "racist" implies a level of moral degeneracy and loathsome ignorance that implies a person is virtually worthless as a human being. I'm not saying it implies this to everyone but it certainly does imply that to me. Blame my parents, I'm pretty sure it is their fault.
Moreover, there is an odd dynamic at work here: as my awareness of racial injustice has increased over the years, the offensiveness and effectiveness of "racist" as an insult has only increased. It is ironic that as the issue became increasing important to me it also caused me to refrain from risking my opinions and insights. To me, being unjustly called a racist by an african american in public --thus lending the insult an undeserved illusion of legitimacy-- would pretty much be the nuclear option in terms of insults. Any further escalation is inconceivable.
I expect that for some readers "racist" just isn't that offensive and they are thinking I'm just setting myself up for my future victimhood; maybe angling for the VP slot on the 2012 Republican ticket. They would be missing the point. Being called a racist is offensive enough to me that the mere thought of it lead me to avoid race related discussions; how offensive it is to them is irrelevant.
I agree with Spike Lee when he expressed the opinion that some controversy is better than no controversy with words to the effect that "The one thing I'm sure about is that avoiding the subject of racism does nothing to improve the situation". I'm now ready to act on my conviction. If someone isn't upset with me over some of my positions on race related issues then I'm going to assume that is a sure sign I'm one of those cowards Eric Holder was talking about.
A Teaching Moment
Obviously this reflection was triggered by the Crowley/Gates incident. I don't know what really happened there even though I've read both accounts and followed a lot of the discussions. I think both men acted stupidly at different points and don't feel any particular need to be an apologist for either. I know I initally assumed that Crowley was racist. It was reading Gate's account when I started to doubt my initial assesment. I realized it was based on nothing more than the fact that a white cop had arrested an african-american harvard professor in his own home. I mean he had to be racist right? The reality isn't that simple but I'm more than happy to let Crowley, Gates and Obama sort this out over a beer.
I don't have any pretentions at teaching anybody anything about racism but teaching implies learning so I thought "what can I learn from this incident". The first was recognizing my own fear of being called a racist and the irony that I had just assumed based on zero evidence (I'm saying I had zero evidence not that there wasn't any evidence) that Crowley was racist. Then I realized what a personal nightmare it would have been for me if in the process of trying to responsibly do my job I was unjustly accused of racism by someone with the stature of Professor Gates. Once again, I'm not claiming this was what happened. I was merely recognizing my own fears in a completely hypothetical situation of my own devising.
My Opinions
Racism is never an accusation to be made lightly --at least not by anyone who is serious about improving race relations. I know racism is alive and well in many places but increasingly there are more places where it is struggling to survive. Having been the victim of racism in the past is an explanation for seeing racism where it no longer exists but it must never serve as an excuse.
As race relations improve there are more and more potential allies to be gained, people who are receptive to the need for further improvement. However, these potential allies feel little responsibilty for past wrongs and are unlikely to be accepting of outdated biases and behaviors grounded in them unless they serve an important purpose in the present. I am certain that fear and guilt is not the way forward and suspect the quickest way to a better future may be to leave some of the past behind.
Clearly there needs to be some balance between exposing past and present wrongs, punishing those responsible and building a better future. It is very hard to understand the present without understand the past but we shouldn't let the past get in the way of the future. Resources are always limited and recruiting an ally is, in my judgment, often (but not always!) more helpful than punishing an enemy. What we want to avoid is driving potential allies away or even turning them into enemies.
For people to reevalute their biases and opinions, to change their hearts and minds, takes courage. If you expect others to be courageous then they have a right to expect the same from you. On any issue of substance there is room for some level of dissension, disagreement and differences of opinion. Rigidly demanding adherence to some orthodoxy has been the Republican recipe for failure; I suggest we don't embrace it. Refusing to engage constructively with people who share your goals and a compatible understanding of the problem is perhaps the ultimate form of cowardace.