Racism vs. racism

Definitions:

1. racism:   pride in one's race
2. Racism: negative instrumentalization of pride in one's race.

I reconstruct the definition of 'Racism' in my book, Is 'Black' Really Beautiful? because I've seen how it's been misappropriated in our contemporary usage. Racism now means what the speaking or the person in question wants it to mean. A person who's discontent with the action of someone who's not of his/her Race will always cite Racism as the mitigating factor even when she/he can't prove their interaction constitutes an act of Racism.

Racism is defined by some people as the attitude of  the Powerful White Men. Others define Racism as the perception that one's Race is more superior to that of others. Yet others believe strongly that Racism is just simply 'White Supremacy.'

Given the definitions we have in the above paragraph, it seems to me Racism is basically a definition which is a function of the unpalatable interaction between A &; B; all belonging to different Races.

To me, Racism is the attitude that one's Race is better than other Races. And this attitude doesn't have to be implicit or verbalized. It can be verbalized or internalized until it's spoken out. However, I don't have any problem with anyone saying that his/her Race is better than mine.

I don't have any problem with that sentiment because that's simply human nature. It's a feeling. I don't have any problem with that attitude of 'superiority' because I know it's not true that his Race is better than mine. In other words, Racism in itself is not the problem; that is, the attitude that one's Race is better than other Races is okay. It's healthy for whoever is speaking or claiming that state of affairs. Remember that state of affairs is fallacious though.

Pause: Pride in one's Race is basically racism; but a benign, necessary one.

However, Racism, becomes bad, grotesque, if other factors are used to instrumentalize it into dangerous parameters.

racism + Hatred = Racism (Bad)
racism +Hatred + wealth =  Racism (Dangerous)
racism + spite + power = Racism (disenfranchisement and dangerous)
racism + jealousy = bad

In the end, it's not racism (that one's race is superior) that is bad, but how that sentiment is used instrumentalized to affect to others.

See Is 'Black' Really Beautiful? on www.thenilepress.com

Follow me on Twitter: @kuirthiy

Can We Just Talk, Damn It!

 The saddest thing about minority groups in North America is the self-centeredness with which they see things. At the same time, they’d want to see issues in the way the mainstream society perceives and defines them. When these issues don’t work in the way they see them, they start to complain. 

And the mainstream (so-called) expects the minority groups to embrace their new home in terms the host country dictates. ‘We welcome what you bring but to a comfortable extent.’ Sound right, but hey, but careful!

We stick to our guns and flaunt our cultures and values ostentatiously without compromise yet we want to coexist. Sounds like stubbornness to me!

I’ve heard somewhere that doing something in the same manner over and over again and expecting a different result is madness. Yeah, this is sad. There has to be an appropriate way in which things should be defined to effect change; change discussed and acceptable to all!

Change is a sad and scary word to a strongly established system. Change only comes when the party that instituted the tenets of the society believes the change it for its benefit. However, the mainstream, as we always like to call it in North America, shouldn’t be expected to embrace change instantly. They have to get convinced that this is not only good change, but change that benefits everyone. And fortunately or unfortunately, the greater benefit has to go to the host if that change has to be effected. Sounds sad, but pragmatic and true!

Expecting others to just accept or believe what we want in the name of ‘we are human’ and ‘this is the 21^st century’ isn’t only naïve, but also counter-productive to any forging of co-existence.

Pushing issues ahead blindly because we feel they are the ‘right’ thing to do should be put to the test.  The recent debate in Quebec about religious symbols in public workplaces doesn’t need castigation or unhelpful criticism. What is right is for both parties to amicably sit and discuss these issues…thoroughly. Well, that sounds utopian because we’re dealing with a party resisting change!

The mainstream Quebec society shouldn’t expect minorities who flaunt their religious symbols in almost all sectors of the society to just let go of them just because they’ve come to Canada. A Sikh, who uses a turban will have to stop applying for government jobs or remove it (turban). Yeah, I know this sounds exclusionary.

Well, minorities shouldn’t just expect the mainstream Quebec society to accept what they bring culturally just because ‘this is our human right.’ Even ‘good things’ need to be understood!

 As long as we stick to the same platitude of ‘oh this is discrimination!’ without explaining how any change is beneficial for, or destructive to, all parties to understand, we shouldn’t be upset or surprised when our world view is either challenged or rejected.