Q&A: Don’t Call Me Black
Don’t Call Me Black
Question
A. Regarding last night’s lecture,
I didn’t understand the conclusion about someone who makes a factual claim—an incorrect negative claim with an unpleasant connotation, not just something nobody cares about—that stems from problematic reasons. For example, he claims that “blacks are less intelligent than whites” because he doesn’t like blacks.
Why not see this as racism (in the reprehensible sense, not just semantics)?? True, the claim itself is not racist in the end, but since he says such a thing because he doesn’t like them, then he himself is a racist! In other words, his (neutral) claim reveals to us that he himself is racist. Why not?
And so, according to what I wrote, there would be an advantage to using the term racist, and the term discrimination is not enough. Because discrimination is on the behavioral level, whereas racist is on the ethical-psychological level.
Exactly like the term miserly
There is miserliness on the behavioral level (= he gives nothing to others), and there is miserliness on the ethical-psychological level (= he wants/likes to be miserly and doesn’t like giving things to others)
B. Factual claims in themselves are not racism. What about value claims? For example, is the claim “women should only belong in the kitchen” racist? Does it indicate that I am reprehensible?
Answer
A. The fact that a person views some group in a negative light, without practical significance, is his own business. And when there is practical significance, then this is discrimination, not racism. True, that outlook is a cause of discrimination, and when that is the cause I said it can be called racism. But still, the problem is the discrimination.
B. That is simply discrimination. You discriminate against women by sending them to the kitchen. Usually this is based on some claim about women (character or abilities), and then we return to the previous section.
Discussion on Answer
Exactly the same thing happens in the U.S. and here in Israel too. This indicates that they have expectations, because in non-democratic places it happens less. Such events stir up many long-standing frustrations, and so it explodes. It’s not really connected to the event itself. But it’s worth taking into account that you also don’t know exactly what happened there, so it’s not certain that you are right and they are wrong. The same is true regarding similar events here and in the U.S. See column 316 about Solomon Teka.
Did you see what’s happening in France these days?
Here: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/sjj7uufon
A police officer killed—whether intentionally or not—a 17-year-old boy with a criminal record because he refused to obey. Paris is burning because of this. Without even waiting for the court’s decision to know whether the officer is guilty or not, all the Arabs and blacks are going out into the streets to burn everything. What do you think about police mistakes? What are they supposedly tied down by? Is the officer presumably innocent, since in such a situation it’s almost impossible to control yourself? Or is he presumably guilty because the young driver was Arab, so obviously he’s racist, etc. etc.?
Did you see their reaction? How do you stop such a group? Even the police don’t know what to do.