Hard Core Sociology. "The fight against racism is in itself a racist act" as per Gilroy, BCCCS?

Question

To oppose racism is in itself a racist act as it legitimises the social construct of "race" which has no scientific basis. Discuss and enjoy. James M Dip Soc BSc(Hon) Scocial Sciences

Answer 1

Not true.

The opposite of hate is not love, but apathy. You can remove hate without imposing love.

The opposite of racism is not racial tolerance, but a racial apathy. You can remove racism without imposing racial preference.

Don't attempt to make me treat someone differently because he's a particular race. SImply do not allow me to treat anyone differently (bettor or worse) because of race. Teaching society to Ignore race altogether is the ultimate fight against racism, yet that act is by definition not racist.

Answer 2

I agree to a point, because if you refuse to see color essentially you are saying that it shouldn't exist and and that everyone should be the same. This in and of itself is a racist concept. If we could all learn to accept different races and colors and then see each person as they are ie. intelligence, talents and abilities without race being seen as positive or negative then we could move out of the racist concept. I don't believe that is possible because we all make immediate judgements based on what we see.

Answer 3

Great Question! I think that Richard15 puts it quite succintly. Race = human. Phenotype skin colour = pigment genotype.

To be anti racist would be to admit that skin colour variations imply different species. We know that when you cross different races the offspring of the cross is not able to procreate.

What we need to fight against is prejudice. What is inbuilt into humans is the proclivity to order it's physical world of such vast difference into categories in order to make the world easier to understand. A basic example would be the way some crustations are avoided by fish because their colour indicates danger or poison.

We do this with skin colour as to investigate every person and to find out whether they pose a threat to (my) survival would take too long and I might be killed in the process. The clown fish does not investigate the red sea anemone because it has a sort of basic categorisation that red anemones are dangerous.

If we combine the theories of Aaron Beck on Risk Society and Melanie Klein on object relations, we are able to see how we take our own bad sentiment and place it in 'the other' so as to deal with the conflict within the self. For example, HIV has always been an infection of the other. In it's genesis it was a virus that belonged to gay men, then gay people, then asian people, then african people. The risk of contracting HIV resides in every individual. "I must protect myself from other people" as apposed to "I must protect myself". The first statement implies that other people are the risk. The second implies that there is risk out there and I am vulnerable. The second sentiment is difficult to take on board as it would mean that I am capable of containing bad things (emotion, sentiment, thought, inclinations, sin, disease etc). It is easier to place these bad things in other individuals or groups of individuals by 'splitting' based on categorisations as arbitrary as skin colour.

What we need to be fighting is apathetic attitudes towards learning. The new illiteracy is not not being able to read or write, but not being able to learn, unlearn and relearn practice.

As far as humans go, we are all one race, the human race. To fight racism is to admit that our skin colour is the basis for race classification. Discrimination is an individual phenomenon. I choose how I see the world, I choose whether to discriminate or embrace. Open your eyes to your fellow human beings.

Answer 4

Hello James, have you been out much?

Of-course you have.

Anyway, you make a good point.

To deny racism is to admit it.

But does that make you racist?

Regardless of whether race is a fact, all people are aware of their race, per say.

You argue that we should be racist for no scientific reason.

I think we have achieved that already.

Answer 5

This is true, the funny thing that happens though when you try to fight racism is you start reverse raceism which you will be nicer then you would to someone else doing the exact same thing who is off your own race.

Answer 6

It depends on how you fight racism. If you fight it by engaging in reverse discrimination, then sure, it's absurd. But if you fight racism by being colorblind, then that is essentially denying the relevence of race.

Answer 7

Your titles don't mean a thing since you ask such a downright stupid question.

How is it racism to treat everyone with dignity?

Common sense would tell you the answers - I don't thnk you have a shred of common sense.

Answer 8

This is like saying that if someone punches you in the nose without just cause and you punch him back, you are just as bad as the guy that punched you! How ridiculous can it get!

Answer 9

four billion years of dog eat dog evolution and now everybodys equal? what a crock, racism is innate in all of us.

Answer 10

Could you explain this assumption to me farther...Give me more logical evidence for your thinking.