There are a couple of key problems with systemic or institutional racism that are never addressed. One is the problem of stereotyping or generalization. These concepts are undeniably a generalization. There certainly is an undercurrent of racism in many corners of our country and our world. That can't be denied. And it's bad. That, too, is undeniable. But it isn't limited to a particular race, nor does it encompass every member of every race. That is, stereotyping and generalizations leave no room for individuals. As such, the principle of systemic or institutional racism makes the problem of racism unsolvable simply because it isn't accurate.
Let me illustrate what I mean from personal experience. In high school my two closest friends were not white. One was a black, legally blind guy and the other had South American parents (Columbia and Chile). We hung out together all the time; after all, we went to the same church, too. Some tagged as as "the United Nations" and others just badgered us for being together. Well, one day I was coming out of the gym and encountered three black guys at the door. They were talking among themselves about the damage they'd like to do to some white guy -- any white guy. I ignored them, but as I crossed the door threshold, one lashed out at me. Oh, he didn't connect, but the idea was clear. I walked on thinking, "Wow, black people must really hate white people" ... for a few moments. Just a few moments because I knew black people that did not hate white people. And it dawned on me that this was how stereotypes were built. If I had allowed the impression the event had given to become the principle, I would have had a problem. What do I do with my black friends?
The other key problem with the principle of systemic racism is that there are no remedies. In a systemic view, the remedy must be systemic. But the fact of the matter is racism is not systemic. There are no "Christian companies" because companies cannot come to Christ -- only individuals. There are no "hate organizations" because organizations are not people and only people can hate. In the same way, applying the "institutional racism" tag may reflect a general truth, but provides no solution since the institution cannot be racist -- only individuals. In the war on terror of the first decade of the 21st century, the argument was made that torture didn't give the information they wanted and only made more terrorists. Similarly, when individuals who are not racist are chastised for being racist, there is a good chance they can be influenced to be racist because of the mistreatment.
We all agree that racism is a problem. I think that the agreement ends there, unfortunately. We don't agree about the definition of the term. We don't agree about the scope of the problem. We don't even have a clue how to address it.
But I would urge all believers in the Savior to address it.
1. I would urge each of us to examine ourselves for the often hidden xenophobia we carry -- the fear of "other." It's that very human failing that produces a "fight or flight" response that is racism. It's sin. I would urge us to ask God to reveal in us those dark sins we may not even be conscious of (Jer 17:9) and repent. I would urge the daily prayer,
Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting! (Psa 139:23-24)2. I would urge each of us to move beyond such sinful biases ourselves. Intentionally expand your circle of friends outside of your comfort zone. Learn from people of different categories -- economic, social, racial, etc. Forgive those who have wronged you (Matt 6:14-15). Seek to learn, to understand, to empathize.
Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger. (James 1:19)3. Stand against sexism, racism, etc. among believers with an aim to restore (Gal 6:1), not punish them. Correct ourselves individually first, then begin the practice of making those corrections permanent, and then reach out to another believer to help in that process. Because racism may dwell among individuals in systems and institutions -- deeply and indelibly -- but it is an individual problem that is only addressed at the individual level. And with the size of this problem, there are a lot of individuals that need to be addressed ... beginning with myself.
9 comments:
It is not surprising, but it is baffling to me how I can say, "We all agree that racism is a problem" and they hear, "You just said racism isn't a problem." I cannot grasp how my call for each of us to address our own "isms" be it racism or sexism or whatever and kill it in ourselves is understood to mean, "You favor racism, especially for white people." So great is the hate these days that asking us, beginning with me, to change the hate is understood as hate and met with hate. Not surprised; just baffled.
In case all of that was unclear, racism is a problem, everyone suffers from it to varying degrees, and pushing it off to "systemic racism" fails to address the problem of the individual just as passing laws against it fails to address the heart problems.
To your post, I agree with your premise that "racism" is primarily an individual problem because it is based in feelings and emotions that are lacking in systems and structures.
Of course systems and structures are made up of people, and those people can codify their individual racism into systems and structures. I think you'd agree that, to the degree that such codification exists, codified racism should be removed.
It should be obvious that "racism" can be and is present in virtually every culture throughout history. Anyone who doubts that Japanese culture (along with some other Asian cultures) hasn't been historically racist, is simply wrong. The Hindu concept of caste, is another form in codified racism that seems to get a pass these days.
I think that you are 100% correct that it's not as much about ethnicity as it is about the "otherness" of people. I've repeatedly asked if Antisemitism is a form of racism and never gotten an answer from anyone other than those who lean conservative.
We are all affected by our personal experiences (as you pointed out) and most of us realize that our individual relationships with individuals who are "other" almost always render the stereotypes and generalizations false. The old trope was that many plantation owners simultaneously believed that all slaves were always on the brink of a violent uprising, while their slaves were happy and content.
The commitment to a narrative, generalization, or stereotype even when it runs counter to lived experience has always struck me a strange. In my case, one of those lived experiences was some significant time with and around John Perkins. He's one of the wisest people I've ever spent time with and his conclusions on this issue have been very influential to me. Particularly his last book, One Blood.
As to your comment, there seems to be a trend by those who's default position is to disagree with anyone they perceive as "the other", with little or no regard to what is actually being said. It's an interesting problem if perceptions, preconceptions, biases, and prejudices in action.
I would insist that each of us is born with an innate attraction to those most like us. Conversely, we are equally prone to distance ourselves from those who appear most different. I don't think there's anything particularly sinful in that, but rather in how we respond to that innate trait. (Imagine if each of us were one of thousands of clones. We would naturally tend to gravitate toward those identical to us.)
When we actually meet someone other than family (as a child, because family is most like us), we learn about what makes us like the new person we meet, while still noting that which makes us different. Similarities may overcome differences, or differences may overcome similarities, and then we respond accordingly. Again...all very natural, and how we respond is what can be judged as moral or sinful.
As to intentionally expanding our our circle of friends, I have a problem with this. Who does it? Why should anyone? It's not how many friends one has, but how good a friend one is to those around them. I've never gone out of my way to form friendships, and the only people with whom I've ever purposely sought to form a relationship were hot babes. All other friendships grew rather organically. Nothing was forced. People talking, getting to know each other, learning about common interests, etc., until one invites the other into one's personal world. Growing up in an area where there was only one black family for most of my youth, all other people were noted for their ethnic or religious differences, yet none of that mattered. Finally, another black family (there may have been more...who knows) resulted in a kid moving into my outer periphery during high school. Didn't have him in any classes. Didn't know if he was my age exactly. Didn't freaking give a flying rat's patoot if he showed up at parties. But that was just as true regarding scores of others during those years.
I'm sick of the whole thing, and disgusted with those who are obsessed with "racial division" while all the while promoting it and enabling it by their "fight racism" platitudes and bromides. God help me...make it go away.
You sound like an exception to my "We all agree that racism is a problem" claim. I'm not nearly as satisfied with my personal biases as you are. And I kind of view expanding my circle of friends as obedience to Christ's "love one another as I have loved you."
One needn't build relationships with everyone one meets in order to faithfully demonstrate loving one another as Christ loved me. That love is evident in how one interacts with anyone with which one comes in contact. I can demonstrate that love and then never again see that person for the rest of my life...not as a result of any intention, but simply because there's no obligation to develop relationships at all. Perhaps you have a verse in mind that suggests such a thing. I can't think of one, though I don't pretend my knowledge of Scripture is as deep as yours.
I would also say that I do not pretend racism is not a problem. I simply don't pretend it's more of a problem than it is, and certainly that it's not as great a problem as it once was, though it seems some are intent on making us all believe that's the case. The main problem of racism in today's US of A is that too many want it to be a problem. Life is so much easier when we have an excuse for our woes that are the result of our own actions. In order to perpetuate this wish, they now talk about racism as being more "nuanced". Nonsense.
I just saw a video wherein a few black people insist it's not enough to be "not racist"...as in, "I'm not racist". No. We now must be "anti-racist! We must constantly be working to end racism where we see it! Where have these people been? Why is this a new thing? Some of us live that way. We just don't label it, we don't obsess over it. We don't make it our calling anymore than we are "anti-theft" or "anti-jerk". Racism is just one more bad behavior we oppose as we encounter it. No need to go looking for it, anymore than we go looking for thieves or jerks.
I'm am biased in a variety of ways, all having to do with jerks and behaviors and NOT meaningless things like skin color, ethnicity or the like. I'm indeed perfectly satisfied with those biases. Where's the problem?
I really don't like it when the likes of Dan or Feodor tell me that something I said was not only wrong, but evil, and, as it turns out, I never said it. I cannot ever recall having said we should build relationships with everyone we meet. Not once. Never said it. "Expand," I said. That's "+1". Kind of silly, perhaps, just like Jesus's "the Good Samaritan" parable. Just one. Who is my neighbor? The people that God brings into my path and not just the people I'm most comfortable with.
It is not my aim to fix "systemic racism" -- just my own. And no person alive is without preference to "those like me." So while James warns against personal favoritism (James 2:1), we are comfortable with it. (Every one of us.) I'm not referring to "racism" or "sexism" or "nationalism." I'm referring to God's command to love your neighbor and Jesus's explanation that your neighbors are the people God brings across your path.
So you're "satisfied with those biases" and I'm hoping you'll look beyond them (Gal 6:1). But you're not my problem. I am. I just know that none of us are what we ought to be and my personal aim is to move toward what I ought to be rather than stay where I am out of a deep and abiding love for my Savior. I have yet to arrive at "I'm good enough."
There's a difference between "neighbor" and "friend". I can be friendly with my neighbors...and I'm using the word "neighbor" in the sense Jesus did...without each being a friend. If you're leaning toward using them interchangeably, I would caution against it without some explanation. To me...and I would argue, to most...a friend is something more specific than a neighbor. To expand one's circle of friends would necessarily require one to develop a friend relationship with each person within that circle. I'm all for expanding one's circle of influence...particularly Christian influence, to the extent that I'm able to have any influence...in which I treat all in a friendly manner as neighbors, because that's what Jesus teaches.
So my comment dealt with your choice of words more so than the sentiment you meant to express. I mean, how many people does the average person meet in his life? I don't see how what I said in my comment strays from Christ's teaching that all are my neighbors. It's not favoritism that not all my neighbors aren't my friends...except in the most general sense possible...or that not all my friends are my best/closest friend. I support this position by citing Scriptures reference to the apostle "Jesus loved". Didn't He love them all?
And yes, I'm totally satisfied with the biases I mentioned. We're absolutely taught to reject bad behavior, and to reject the unrepentant...the reprobate...is justified as well, though one can do that AND still be treating the jerk equally at the same time (particularly in the area of rendering first aid).
So in my comment, as in this one, I was making distinctions for the purpose of clarity.
Finally, to be snarky since you cited feo and Dan, I must remind you that Dan also gets testy when he dislikes the conclusions his choice of words compels. HAH!
See? The importance of words. You're right. To me, a "friend" is someone with whom you are connected. There are clearly various levels of friends, from "acquaintance" to "close" to "intimate" (where intimate does NOT require "sexual intimacy"). So when I urged Christians to expand their circle of friends, it could be as simple as "acquaintances" and for the explicit purpose of expanding my own level of understanding of people I'm not currently understanding. The explicit purpose would be to expand our "comfort zone" beyond "just like me" and I think it's a biblical purpose.
And on that we're in agreement...absolutely.
Post a Comment