The Accusation Of Racism: The Chimera That Will Not Die

I once posted the following questionnaire at Eternity Road:

To those who consider it racist to ask whether there might be real, objective differences among the races as regards intelligence, moral fiber, predisposition to act from emotion rather than reason, depth of religious feeling, and so forth: Please contemplate the following questions, and answer them to the best of your ability. In all of them, the use of the terms "equal" and "unequal" should be taken to refer to statistical aggregates, not to individuals.

1. Is racism:
   • The belief that the races differ in one or more measurable ways?
   • The belief that persons of different races should be treated differently by the law?
   • The belief that one race is, overall, "superior" to another?
   • The belief that the races are unequal in God's eyes?
   • All of the above?
   • Something other than any of the above?
   
   
2. Is it racist to note correlations between race and:
   • Rates of violent crime?
   • Demographic concentrations?
   • Propensity toward poverty, however defined?
   • Propensity toward single-parent, female-headed households?
   • Any of the above?
   • Something other than any of the above?
   
   
3. Imagine that predominance in some activity A consistently belongs to race R. Would it be racist to posit that race R has a natural superiority at activity A, if A were:
   • Basketball?
   • Mathematics?
   • Singing?
   • Chess?
   • Maintaining stable families?
   • Any of the above?
   • Something other than any of the above?
   
   
4. Imagine that Smith believes that the races don't really mix well -- i.e., that each race does best for itself when the races live apart. Which of the following would absolve Smith of racism?
   • He maintains that the races are absolutely equal in all important ways, but that they simply don't get along well?
   • He maintains that, though the races might be statistically unequal in some details, nevertheless all individuals should be judged, not according to their race, but according to their personal merits?
   • He maintains that, though the races are statistically unequal in one or more important ways, those disparities can be overcome over time?
   • He maintains that though the races are statistically unequal in several important ways, nevertheless the law should treat all persons equally -- i.e., the law should be "color-blind?"
   • Any of the above?
   • Something other than any of the above?
   
   
5. Which of the following contentions, in the absence of objective data, would be racist behavior:
   • To insist on the inequality of the races in some measurable way, and to be correct?
   • To insist on the inequality of the races in some measurable way, and to be incorrect?
   • To insist on the equality of the races in some measurable way, and to be correct?
   • To insist on the equality of the races in some measurable way, and to be incorrect?
   • Any of the above?
   • Something other than any of the above?
   
   
6. Imagine the following: You have been kidnapped and are confronted by four doors. Behind door A is a Negro, behind door B is an Oriental, behind door C is a Caucasian, and behind door D is a purebred American Indian. Your kidnapper tells you an activity, and commands you to select one of the four doors. Whoever is behind that door will be your champion in a contest drawn from that activity. For example, if the activity were mathematics, your champion might have to solve a set of simultaneous equations faster than his opponent; if the activity were fisticuffs, your champion would have to out-box his opponent according to standard rules; if the activity were tightrope walking, your champion might have to maintain his balance longer than his opponent. The stakes are your life. Knowing nothing about the persons behind the doors but their races, which door would you choose if the activity were:
   • Arm-wrestling?
   • Computer programming?
   • Sorting a large number of small objects by size, color, or shape?
   • Automobile racing?
   • Hunting?
   
   
7. Having answered the above questions sincerely, has your definition of racism changed?

I received very few responses, which is understandable. Even one who travels the Web anonymously is likely to be reticent about the subjects of racism, race relations, and racial integration. The accusation of racism remains a damaging thing, not to be courted by anyone who fears the possible consequences.

One of the advantages the old possess that the young do not is that our time horizons, foreshortened by the finitude of human life, render some fears less compelling than others. That's certainly been the case for me. In particular, I no longer fear baseless accusations made by persons with an axe of any sort to grind. My body of expressed opinions, every last one of which has been made under my right and full name, should speak for itself -- at least, to anyone I respect and whose opinion I value.

So give that questionnaire above your full attention, Gentle Reader. Don't bother to post your answers; I'm not really interested in them. How does it make you feel? Nervous? As if you're being watched? As if I might be inviting you to step into a mine field?

Now ask yourself why.

---

Recently, a post that linked to Mark Butterworth's "Tales of New America" series appeared at the heavily traveled Free Republic Website. It brought Liberty's Torch a lot of traffic...and a lot of very nasty comments and email, all of which I've suppressed.

Mark's stories were forthright about the tensions and sporadic violence that currently characterize relations between Caucasian and Negro Americans, and one of the probable paths that might arise from those facts. But in America in the year of Our Lord 2013, even to speculate about such things is baiting the bear of the racialist Left. And so the torrent of venom was unleashed, and I was compelled to exercise my powers as moderator of this site.

The Left is aware that charges of racism, though no longer the mortal wounds they once were, are still potent enough to silence many an American. Inasmuch as the subject of interracial relations is becoming ever more critical -- you have been keeping up with the news, haven't you? -- they're swinging that hammer more frequently, and more viciously, than ever.

This was to be expected. Not only are race relations becoming the hottest of hot topics once again; the Left's bastions are crumbling in plain sight. Its most prominent figures are disgracing themselves; the policies it's championed are visibly causing social and economic deterioration; and its other rhetorical weapons are failing it. So it's falling back on the tool that's never failed it: the baseless accusation that this or that commentator is a racist; in the most extreme formulation, that the target "wants to bring back slavery."

I am reminded of another post from long ago:

Some years ago, a theater impresario whom we shall call Smith, whose current production Hoity-Toity was, shall we say, not repaying its production costs received a phone call from Jones, a well-known reporter for the prestigious publication Theater Life. Their conversation ran as follows:

"Mr. Smith," Jones said, "I'm calling to ask a few questions about Hoity-Toity."

"Go right ahead," Smith said.

"Well, first of all," Jones said, "the talk is that Hoity-Toity is falling deeply into arrears and will soon be closed. Is that the case?"

Smith, a careful and experienced man, counted to ten before answering. "I would imagine that if I were to say no, your story in tomorrow's edition would be headlined 'Smith Denies Hoity-Toity Near To Closing.' Am I correct?"

"Well, yes," Jones said. "Something like that, anyway."

"Well, then," Smith said, "I'll answer your question if you'll answer one for me. How's that sound?"

"Fair enough," Jones said warily. "What's your question?"

"Mr. Jones, is it true that your wife has syphilis?"

"What?" Jones shrieked. "Why are you asking me that? What put such an idea into your head?"

"Oh, you know how the rumor mill churns," Smith said breezily. "But, as it happens, you're on speakerphone and Davis is here from Variety. If you were to answer no, he might have a story in tomorrow's edition headlined 'Jones Denies Wife Has Syphilis.' What would you think of a story like that?"

There was a long silence on the line. Finally, Jones said, "All right, Smith. I take your point."

Do you take the point, Gentle Reader?

---

So much of what I write here "should go without saying" that I sometimes despair. But then, it's a commonplace that "common sense" is among the least common things in the universe.

Many an accusation is made merely to provoke a denial. Experienced politicos know that -- and know that the denial, if one is offered, is grist for the PR mill. It will displace all the other news about the subject or persons in controversy; it will invite further questions about the character of the accused; and worst of all, it will stimulate further accusations, probably no better founded than the original, to prevent the accused from returning to the case he was trying to make.

The denial of a substanceless accusation is "blood in the water" to the sharks of the political scene. Yet resisting the urge to deny such an accusation -- especially the charge of racism -- takes more fortitude than many accused persons can summon.

The moral should be obvious...but once again, the Latin roots of obvious mean overlooked.

It's far better to be forthright about one's convictions, even on an ultra-sensitive subject such as race relations, than to hedge them about with qualifiers, exclusions, and exculpations. Mark Butterworth has made his convictions about race relations plain, which marks him as an unusually courageous writer. More, he has the good sense not to "feed the sharks" by responding to their accusations...assisted, of course, by your humble servant's powers of comment moderation. If enough of us were to grasp this, such charges would eventually fade away completely for lack of effect...yet another "obvious" point it pains me to have to make.

Keep the faith.