A response to racism

This note is a response to Carolyn Davids' article entitled `Power + Prejudice= racism' equals an inadequate definition.

I must start by stating my appreciation for Davids' concern of seeking a better way to understand what racism means and thus confront it in Calvin and society at large. Now, I must also clarify that this response is not intended as a harsh criticism to the author, rather, it is a response to some issues that I think are overlooked by Davids' analysis of racism in her article.

First, I cannot see how Davids arrived at the conclusion that only white people can be racist based on the mentioned definition of rascism. It just does not follow. It is not true that white people in the United Satates are the only people with power; they have the most power, but they are not the only ones with it. It is necessary to notice that power can have different expressions. For example, inside some colored groups, it has been known that lighter skin members have discriminated against members with darker skin even though a share race binds them. (Please forgive me for not entering into more details on this respect but for the sake of brevity this example should suffice to illustrate my point.) This is an exercise of power by a group that has less power than white folks. In the same way, this kind of power can infiltrate institutions, etc.

Second, it is a mistake to sever the relationship between attitudes, actions and institutions. If we think about it for a moment, attitudes do not exist out there by themselves. People ``have attitudes'' and carry them out through their actions. Institutions do not rise by themselves, but people create institutions.

If you are following me it will result in it being obvious what I am trying to say. This strategy has always been used to say, for example, that racism is a problem of people and that institutions function well and are not biased. But this is not the case. Institutions are not independent agents. People move institutions and thus their attitudes shape those institutions.

Third, I strongly disagree with Davids' defining of racism as ``merely a modifier to specify a type of prejudice.'' Sorry, but modifiers do not enslave people, batter them for the colored of the skins or hinder their flourishing; people do these things. I remember my first day of kindergarten. I was all excitement for my first day of school but when I got there everything changed. I was not allowed in the school of my parents' preference because I was a Puerto Rican, and as a Latino kid, I was to go to the bilingual school and not to the all English school. According to Davids, this would be explained as the prejudice of people. True enough, but then we will miss the fact that there are rules and laws in place that lead to these kind of actions (Institutions perhaps?).

Fourthly, I do not deny that colored people do express racism (black and Jews relationship, Latinos vs. Irish in some big cities, etc.); however, it is not true that the definition of racism that MSAB further exempts colored people from their actions. This is just a logical fallacy. It makes no sense. But in reality, colored people are the people who are more affected by racism than white people are. When was the last time that a white was shot over twenty times for reaching for his wallet when stopped by the cops.

I would like Davids, as a white female, to tell me when was the first time that she was single out from a group of tourists and detained for interrogation just because for how she looks. (I have a couple of those under my belt and a few experiences which I won't mention here.) This is but one of the many other things to which minority people are exposed everyday.

Davids also says that this definition is unchristian because it is judgmental. It arouses anger instead of humility. I do agree that we must be more humble in the ways we approach the matter of race. But by no means will someone convince me that a car is a bike. The history of racism has been plagued with euphemisms. Let us call it in a nice way because if not people will get over stimulated. Sorry, but that will not do the trick. We need to call sin and not merely misbehavior. Some things just need to be pointed out in order to deal with them. Jesus was doing exactly that when he advised not to judge. He was pointing out the flaws of those who thought of themselves as the holiest, so that they would fall on their knees and repent. Another problem is that when we talk about humility in a matter concerning race, it seems to be the case that humbling happens to accommodate the bad feelings of those in power so that they can feel more comfortable. It seems that colored people always have to hush their voices of protest and outrage and resist in silence because the others feel uneasy with us calling things by their proper names. Ibuprofen and Advil may be the same thing, but Advil is a brand among others of Ibuprofen. Colored people, more than servants, have been slaves, and we need to recognize this awful reality before we ask them to be a bit more humble.

If we want to break the barriers of racism, we need to look racism straight in the face. Once this is done, we will see the face of racism not only in the attitudes of people and in their actions, but also we will see racism's face in its other manifestations in society (like the institutions that perpetuate racism while the responsible can claim no guilt for it).

Elias Ortega