The Politically Correct Definition of Racism Is Racist

Guest Post by Dr. John Hunt

Image credit: Tom Pierce. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Racism is a fire that the political class can’t put out, perhaps because they don’t want to. Intentionally or not, the politicians, media and academics are all stoking the fires.

The historically racist term colored people has been replaced by the cool and fully acceptable term people of color. I harbor doubts that such a change in terminology will make a dent in the problem of racism.

But words are important and they do influence thought, so we need to be aware when our definitions are causing problems.

Discrimination is a term that has undergone major changes in meaning. Discriminate used to mean to choose after careful deliberation, a process that has only positive connotations. Over the decades, the meaning gradually changed to a negative: making a choice based on group affiliation such as race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Then the word discriminate mutated further. It now seems to hold a more confusing, subjective and inconsistent meaning, one that took me a while to parse. After some contemplation, I realize that discrimination has come to mean doing something that someone might want to get offended by.

With that background, let’s take the term racism head on. In this conversation, I am using the original definition of the term discriminate as opposed to the politically correct or confused versions.

First, let’s ask: is there some biological, innate, genetically transferred process that, in addition to the history of slavery, causes or underlies racism? There could be. And if there is, we need to be aware of it.

We know that people commonly are attracted to mates who look like themselves. Just so, perhaps the tribes of long ago feared people who looked different from themselves—who looked strange—in other words, strangers. And rightfully so back then, as such strangers might be invaders, stealing their land, their children, enslaving the women. Over the millennia, a fear of strangers may have become teleologically engrained. In other words, to fear people who look different may have provided a survival benefit. Indeed it still may, such as when fear of hooded gangs leads to avoidance of them. In addition to cultural causes, does the spontaneous segregation of black kids and white kids at school lunch tables have an ancient biological underpinning? Possibly. There certainly are other evolutionary adaptations in the brain that prove to be handicaps in modern society. Racism may, in part, be a residual handicap left over from primitive times.

Fortunately, individual humans have rational function in the cerebral cortex that modulates the deeply engrained instinctual processes of our animal natures. Indeed this ability to overcome instincts with rationality distinguishes us from animals. It is the rational individual mind that needs to overcome racism, whether that racism is either biological or cultural (either nature or nurture). The rational mind can even overcome racism that is intentionally reinforced in us by those who want to divide us into more easily controlled groups.

The individual rational mind has the potential to be a powerful weapon against racism, but a dominant definition of racism stands in the way.

There are two competing definitions of racism. One is collectivist, and one is individualist. And they couldn’t be more different.

The dominant and politically correct definition is the collectivist definition used by the statists (the socialists, fascists, progressives). The collectivist definition is: Racism is the oppression of one race by a dominant race. In this collectivist definition, all blame and all victimhood falls on entire races, both diluting responsibility and disregarding any individuals who stand apart. An individual has little or no control over this racism, because it is a collective (group) definition. The collectivist racism is a political process, which provides a clue as to why we are still struggling to beat it.

The individualist definition of racism is vastly different and recognizes that racism is an ethical and practical individual characteristic and choice. The individualist definition is Racism is irrational discrimination based on race.

(Note, there can be rational reasons to discriminate, such as when a casting director chooses a black man–as opposed to a white woman–to portray Nelson Mandela).

It is only the individual who is capable of making deliberate choices, of acting as a moral agent, of discriminating. In contrast, a group—such as a race of people—is not a moral agent capable of discriminating right from wrong or capable of making choices. Since only individuals can choose between right and wrong, the individualist definition of racism is the only racism that any of us can affect.

Note that only within the individualist definition do you have the power over whether you are racist or not. The statist definition defines you as part of a racial group. Note also that the individualist definition of racism is broader than the narrow collectivist definition. After all, there is no collectivist version of racism (one group oppressing another group) without the individual process of racial discrimination.

Yes, the individualist definition includes bidirectional racism. The politically correct may scream in anger at any notion that racism could be bidirectional (or multilateral), in spite of the obvious reality that racial discrimination is just that. Remember, the politically correct people are ensconced in their dysfunctional collectivist definition, which excludes from the term racism any racial discrimination undertaken by individual members of the oppressed race.

Note that the collectivist definition of racism not only tolerates racial discrimination (if undertaken by the oppressed), but indeed demands that people discriminate based on race. And today’s media magnifies this. The headline, “White Cop Shoots Black Man” defines both people involved by their skin color as opposed to their character. At least the cop gets recognition for his profession, but the man who got shot is defined by, and described as being, not a father or son, or friend, or lover, or lawyer, or plumber, or Christian, or philosopher, or dancer, but as black. Can there be anything more antithetical to Martin Luther King’s dream than the way the media focuses attention on race (or even just skin tone) rather than content of character? The media intentionally pours gasoline on a fire we should have long since put out.

The government encourages us to racially discriminate, systemically subsidizes such discrimination, and even mandates it. A government form rarely passes my desk in which I am not asked to check off a box to categorize myself based on race, no matter how irrelevant race is to the purpose of the form (it is always irrelevant). I check off “Other” and write-in “Martian.”

I reiterate that the collectivist definition inherently demands us to discriminate based on race. And so the promoters of this definition end up encouraging racial discrimination. And therein lies a major contradiction and failing. We cannot effectively address racism if we accept yet another counterproductive collectivist definition.

Collectivism (statism), as proven throughout history, is seen once again as dehumanizing, destructive and diluting responsibility. This failed ideology feeds and encourages the racism that its advocates purport to decry. They pretend to hold some moral high ground. But they aren’t anywhere near it.

The solution to the problem of racism is the affirmation of individualism, the centrality of individual rational thought, and individual responsibility, because individualism focuses on ethical choices and on the content of an individual’s character.

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
anarchyst
anarchyst

I have come to the conclusion that enacting of the so-called “civil-rights” acts were mistakes. The more “rights” blacks demand, the more they complain and make demands not available to whites. When whites become a “minority” in our own country, do you think the “civil-rights” acts will benefit us? I think not…

When whites become a minority, this country is finished. All one has to do is look at Zimbabwe, South Africa, and other black-run “basket cases”. This is our future…

That being said…

The term “racism” was invented by communists, and is used to destroy cultures and defuse (and render impotent) those with differing points-of-view on “racial” issues.

True “racism” is desirable as it merely cements cultural and social bonds that are necessary for a society to function and flourish.

True “racism” merely denotes commonality of purpose and advancement within each respective racial group.

Blacks have the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus, Hispanics have La Raza and Mecha, Jews have the $PLC, ACLU and ADL. These are all “racist” organizations that serve to promote the interests (and political power) of their respective races.

It is only whites who are castigated and threatened for attempting to show any signs of racial solidarity.

Let’s look at what us “evil, privileged” whites have done for Western society and the world:

1. “Civil-rights (for some)” laws (that effectively destroy “freedom of association” for whites, but not for other races) and do not apply to whites–only “people of color” are covered by these so-called “civil-rights (for some)” protections.

2. “Affirmative action” policies (that push better qualified whites out of positions and jobs that they would ordinarily qualify for) in favor of lesser-qualified minorities. In fact, “affirmative action” policies actually damage those minorities who are quite capable of “making it on their own” because they get “lumped in” with the groups that cannot make it on their own without “help”,

3. “Contract set-asides” (that are specifically targeted for minorities (that white people are prohibited from bidding on) and immigration policies (that specifically exclude whites, most of who have skills that would benefit the USA) in favor of those from the third-world (with no marketable skills).

4. Scholarships that specify particular ethnic groups are looked upon favorably by most people, save one–scholarships that are intended for whites only are looked upon as being “racist”, and therefore impermissible and improper in today’s racially-charged climate of “political correctness”.

NO OTHER RACE (BUT WHITES) HAS (EVER) BENT OVER BACKWARDS to assure that all non-white races receive a “fair shake” in being a part of American life, even to the detriment and social well-being of “our own kind” (whites).

Whites possess an externalized altruism that no other races possesses. This externalized altruism that “looks out for the other guy” will be the demise of the white race. This altruism needs to be internalized and focused inward, just as other races have done. There is NO SHAME in looking out for one’s own kind.

I blame those of the “greatest generation” for selling out our birthright with the passage of the “Civil-Rights Acts” of 1957 and 1964, and the “Hart-Cellar immigration act of 1965”. To those of the “greatest generation” (who are still alive) thanks for NOTHING…

Let’s not forget that “freedom of association” (but only affecting the white majority) was eviscerated by the enacting of these clearly unconstitutional acts.

As whites comprise only 6% of the world population, it is us whites who should be the most protected and cherished of minorities…

“Multiculturalism” and “diversity” are code-words for white genocide.

ursel doran
ursel doran

All to true sir, just look at Zimbabwe, the poster boy, and the cities mentioned here.

Further to the civil rights act, LBJ was quoted as saying that “This will have the niggers voting democrat forever”.
All these attacks to disenfranchise / demote the power of whitey is for one reason only, to take the stealing rights back for the left, and pals.

Donkey Balls
Donkey Balls

Anarchyst,

I’m compiling all of your comments. Is it ok with you, at some point, I create a standalone post for admin? I won’t do it without your permission.

anarchyst
anarchyst

Yes, please do, with attribution. Regards,

Donkey Balls
Donkey Balls

Yes, of course with attribution. Keep posting and I will collect them over time.

Dane
Dane

Out of the entirety of The Kings English dictionary over a billion concepts can be construed and a several million sentences collated; all from just twenty-six letters compressed into various configurations; but with providence there is only one Maxim that forever supersedes all others:
‘We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.’ 14 Words.

Stucky

“people of color” is fashionable now. But, based on nignog history, it WILL change. Wonder what the next iteration will be?

I’m going with Pigmentally Rich.

Anonymous
Anonymous

they’ve already branched out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin_theory

Hillel group provides space for Jewish students of color

“Hillelin’ with Melanin addresses intersectional identities, lack of representation”

A-mazing.

Anonymous
Anonymous

Everyone … EVERYONE … is a racist. Given their druthers, when given the opportunity to associate w/ someone of their ‘race’ or someone of another ‘race’ people choose their own race. No problem. It’s the human condition. It’s only a problem when ‘race’ is used as justification for economic outcomes, both by positive and negative selection.

gatsby1219
gatsby1219
Iska Waran
Iska Waran

So we’re going back to “colored people”?

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading