The Blight of Racism
The editorial in the Weekend Herald this morning makes the common and fundamental error that there are degrees of racism.
“Racial discrimination does real harm when it is practised by members of a race with power, usually a democratic majority. When discrimination favours a minority, to preserve its identity perhaps, or boost its educational enrolments, it does no real harm and probably some good.”
The editor advocates that Joris de Bres should explain his attitude to Harawira’s outburst thus. To summarise: Majority racism bad; minority racism good. What tripe.
How, then, do we apply that to apartheid where the minority whites were accused of racism against the majority blacks? Is that now somehow ok? And how do we apply that to a group of muslim youths beating a gay guy? Or does that not count because gays aren’t a “race”, just a minority group? Perhaps the editor and Mr de Bres would like to take a walk through Harlem and experience “preservation of identity” first hand?
This attempt to make one form of racism acceptable over another stems from a misunderstanding of the term racist:
“They are fragile in large part because the word racism is widely, and perhaps wilfully, misunderstood. To those of the politically dominant race, it simply means a racial slur. To those of a minority, it means that and much more. It covers the discrimination, exclusion and deprivations they can suffer unless the law takes care to protect them.”
This is just nonsense. Racism is the pre-judgement of a person or group based solely on their race or colour. Nothing more, nothing less. While it is true that minority races often suffer the consequences of racism more than the majority, racism is still racism, even when it is done by a minority race, oppressed or otherwise. It is not acceptable, not because it is offensive, but because racism is antithetical to a cohesive society. Put simply, it destroys nations. There will never be a new Zealand, or an Aotearoa, while we allow people to be racist, Maori or Pakeha.
Nelson Mandela understood this very well. His very first speech following his release from prison was a speech of reconciliation. Much of the emphasis in his presidency was the fostering of that reconciliation. The movie Invictus due out in December is about Mandela’s attempt to use the Rugby World cup to forge bonds between whites and blacks in an attempt to overcome ingrained racial hatred. The trauma of the Truth and Reconciliation commission was an attempt at catharsis and forgiveness which had some success.
Gandhi understood racism as well. Having experience prejudice in his youth, he was determined not to return the prejudice or allow his followers to be racially motivated. He understood the lessons of the French revolution very well. When hatred is the main impetus for revolution, the result is always tyranny and chaos. Gandhi was determined that that would not be the fate of India, and he largely succeeded.
For a modern example of what happens when you use racial hatred to try to form a new nation, we need to look no further than Zimbabwe. The white racist regime was merely substituted for a black racist regime, a regime that relied on continuing the hatred and fear in order to cement itself in power. The result is a nation thoroughly destroyed.
So to the editor of the Weekend Herald and to Joris de Bres, the lesson is simple. You cannot allow Hone Harawira to practice his own brand of racism unchecked. Such a cancer corrodes society. Racism is always a blight on a nation, no matter who the racist is.
History is clear on this: You cannot use racial hatred to build a nation. No one ever has and no one ever will.
Related posts:
- Racist Race Relations If there was ever a good reason for canning the...
- Racists Dear Mr. Sharples I judge from your recent remarks that...
- The Maul Around Paul One only has to look at the furor in the...
- Spot the REAL Hypocrites (updated) I know I am showing my age a bit here,...
- They’re Everywhere! The Political Correctness Nazis are attempting to ban Tintin again....
9 Comments
Leave A ReplyOne Trackback/Ping
- The Scourge of Racism « Something should go here, maybe later. — [...] Scourge of Racism Andrew W comments on MacDoctor: Racism by minorities is in my opinion actually the ...
Nov 14 09 6:15 pm
A fine post that gets to the core of the matter. What a pity our lords and masters don’t share the same clear-eyed view.
.-= KG´s last blog ..= 1000 words….. =-.
Nov 14 09 6:40 pm
I prefer to have a society where individuals are free to exercise personal choice and be racist or non-racist, rather than a society where the state forces people to be racist or non-racist.
Racism is a form of discrimination, and everyone discriminates. Eg, every heterosexual male discriminates against every other male when he’s looking for a wife. To try and legislate away racism is to try and legislate away human nature, i.e. a futile exercise.
My personal moral code forbids racism, but if a business owner chooses not to hire people from the Wookie race I have no problem with that, and I believe that he should be free to make that choice.
There are similarities between Zimbabwe and NZ, for here the whites are discriminated against. I have listed some examples of this:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/i-am-pakeha-and-i-am-oppressed/
.-= Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• So-called abused children to go onto database =-.
Nov 14 09 7:21 pm
Thank you- this is an interesting topic. “Reverse-racism is ok” is the message we get from the herald.
You’ve reminded me of another word- very relevant in NZ society, that has been subverted to mean something that it was never meant to- “discrimination”.
Though its traditional meaning is neutral discernment (or perceiving differences that exist), it has now become the catch-word for “Unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners”, which is its ‘sociological’ meaning from wiktionary.
I think racism is negative as it always implies that another race is inherently inferior to that of the racist’s. In NZ society most of us react very strongly against it, as we should- our relatives fought in wars against the racist nazis. However ‘discrimination’, has also come to represent the same negative connotations as racism, despite the fact that it was never meant to be used so, and is now used as a weapon of the liberal bully to try and intimidate those who aren’t in favour of liberal policies.
Dissent from liberal policy = racist = homophobe = bigot = facist = stop discrimination now! Note how the reaction is definitely not kneejerk at all….
Nov 14 09 7:28 pm
Do you think Hone remembers that the blood of white and Maori NZers were spilled together during a few world wars in order to stamp out racism?
Nov 14 09 9:31 pm
KP: “Prejudice” and “discrimination” are not necessarily wrong, as long as they are built on knowledge rather than assumption. For example, if I was running a left-wing blog, you would not be on my guest post list. That pre-judgement and discrimination against you would be based on my knowledge of your blog, which is definitely right-wing.
Racism, however, is not based on knowledge, but on fear, suspicion and dislike, even hatred. It is the antithesis of a rational judgement and should be discouraged wherever possible.
I agree that the solutions to racism lie somewhere other than government control and legislation. The point here is, though, that , when you do have legislation against racism, it must be even-handed, otherwise it is simply racist itself.
Nov 14 09 11:00 pm
Racism by minorities is in my opinion actually the more destructive form of racism. It destroys hope amongst members of the minority that they can improve their lot, and it leaves the poorer members of the minority vulnerable to being manipulated by their leaders for their own ends, into crime, into self-destructive rebellion against the status quo.
Nov 16 09 7:38 am
MacD: a lot of people think that I’m right wing, but I’m not. I’m a classical libertarian.
The only biblically justifiable functions of government are rewarding good and punishing evil, and therefore taxation is only moral when it is for those purposes. All other functions of government and related taxation, including prevention of evil, are unbiblical and therefore immoral. I challenge you to find a biblical justification for the law that requires me to go to my doctor and get a prescription before I can take a pill
Right wing policies are statist and therefore reprehensible to a libertarian. However, it is true that right wing policies are a step in the right direction for a libertarian.
For the record, I do not regard National as right wing, as most NZers do. Key is a Keynsian socialist, and the party’s left hand is holding Marx’s right hand.
.-= Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• So-called abused children to go onto database =-.
Nov 16 09 8:20 pm
KP, Classical Libertarian would still not get you added to MacDoctor’s hypothetical left wing blog
.-= ZenTiger´s last blog ..A Beautiful Result From A Beautiful Game =-.
Nov 17 09 7:13 am
Zen:
You are correct, I’d be as welcome as a skunk in a spacesuit.
.-= Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• So-called abused children to go onto database =-.