Is racism subjective or objective?

This Tweet is highly opinionated and very subjective, with several factual errors. First it appears to equate racism with a serial killer. So, in the authors’ opinion, are those with racist tendencies (at least “racist” by definition of the authors) the same as serial killers? 

There’s another problem in that the Tweet seems to imply serial killers target skin color. There are some serial killers who do, but there are many who don’t fit that profile. There are white serial killers who may only target women, or white women, or immigrants, or some other group. The argument “You can be my friend and still be racist the same way a serial killer still has friends that are alive” assumes the killer wants to kill everyone. The additional statement “Stop using your relationships with people of color as proof of non-racism” is purely subjective. 

Using similar logic I might as well assume anyone with a computer and/or smartphone is technologically savvy and doesn’t need any tech support. Or, if someone tells me they have a password then I should assume they are cybersecurity-minded and shouldn’t worry about getting hacked. Having a computer and smartphone does not mean someone is or isn’t technologically challenged. Nor can I make the assumption that the person likes or hates technology. It’s not until I work with someone to understand their issues that I can help resolve problems.

The point is, unless you take time to understand the other person, where they’re coming from, what their experience is, and how they understand and perceive things, then you cannot make a good judgment. That means, someone who has relationships with people of color may or may not be racist, but, unless you take the time and make the effort to find out all you can, to really understand the other person, you can’t really know and it’s not your place to make that judgment. 

If you jump to conclusions, are highly oversensitive, and don’t take the time to find out all facts, all sides, of the story, then don’t be surprised if others do the same to you.

“For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (Matthew 7:2)

The problem with “racism” is it is no longer objective. The definition is no longer equally applied, understood, and accepted by everyone. I think most whites use the dictionary definition of racism which is why most who have friends, acquaintances, or other relationships with those with different skin colors don’t see themselves as racist. They don’t have prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against someone or a group of people based on race or ethnicity. 

From my observations, most people of color use a subjective interpretation of what they think racism is, or what they have been told by other people of color what racism is. And if you don’t agree with what they subjectively define as racism then you are a racist. And it seems they don’t believe someone of a different skin color (especially white) can understand what racism is.

I hear of “racist” acts that are called racist because a white person was performing the act and a person of color was on the receiving end. But if the act was towards a woman it might be called sexist or harassment. If it was between two kids it might be classified as bullying. If the same action is performed by a person of color against a white person (especially against a white male) then it's not racist. 

I have friends whose skin colors are different than mine. But there are people of color I won’t be friends with. And there are lots of whites I will equally not be friends with. So am I an equal opportunity racist because I choose who I want to be friends with? 

What a lot of people don’t want to accept is our perception filters our reality and colors our biases. And we all have bias, though not necessarily against skin color. 

If someone didn’t have any bias they would like (or dislike, but I’ll use like for my examples) everything equally, like everyone equally, like everywhere equally, like to do everything equally, etc. They would accept and respond to everything equally. In short, a person without any bias wouldn’t have any preferences or even opinions. I think they’d probably be a little boring because differences are good. The world would be very boring is everyone was the same.

Too many activists seem to believe that if others don’t act and respond the same way they do then the other person must be against their activism. They subjectively label others, they fail to attempt to understand others, and they often don’t accept or respect those whose perceptions and understanding are different than their own. Whether it’s true or not, the talk, actions, and beliefs of most activists show to others that the activists believe they are right and others are wrong, and those who are wrong don’t deserve any respect or consideration.

The Rule of Law should reign in the land. Laws should be applied and enforced equally, with equal consequences to those who violate the law. Too often the problem hasn’t been with the law but with its equal and fair enforcement, so people think new laws are needed to address the enforcement.

 

I believe a problem is there are laws that elevate groups of the population into special protected classes. There are those who have developed animosity towards certain protected classes because, to them, it seems those groups get preferential treatment under the law. 

There are white people who are afraid of talking to people of color because they’re afraid their words and/or actions will be subjectively misunderstood and perceived as racism. Ironically, many of those people might be labeled as “racist” simply because they don’t talk to someone of color out of their fear. Why are they afraid? Because the law will treat them more harshly if they say or do something that the colored person says--based on a subjective perception--is racist. Many who do talk to people of color act as if they are walking on broken glass, becoming hypersensitive to not saying anything potentially perceived as offensive. I have a hard time believing anyone who wants equality and fairness for all would want anyone to feel afraid or hesitant to talk to them because of the special protection laws. 

And there are those who decide that they must have racist tendencies if they don’t get involved with some antiracism activism, so they get involved to “prove” they aren’t racist and they accept everything the activism movement throws at them because, if they don’t, they must be racist. And then those people too often apply their own justification and reasoning on others, labeling others as racist (or anti-whatever-movement) simply because those others aren’t doing, saying, accepting, or supporting all of the same things. These people are prejudiced against those who don’t agree with them, that is they pre-judge people who don’t agree with them as being racist, homophobic, or whatever label suits those who oppose the movement.

What comes to your mind when I tell you the following? I have no desire to ever attend a protest.

In the minds of many, I must be racist because they would go to the protest. But the reality is, I’m very much an introvert and I avoid crowds whenever possible. I also don’t like the mob mentality that can instantly flare up into disrespectful and uncontrolled speech and actions. While most protests I’ve seen are “peaceful”, meaning there isn’t violence, most were not organized lawfully and, because laws were not followed, the protesters shouldn't be classified as being peaceably assembled because of their disregard for the law. And, when you get into protesting groups there is too often a lot of disrespect, hate, and anger. But mostly I don’t like crowds. I don’t even like going to parades.

The First Amendment of the Constitution gives the right for us to peaceably assemble “and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” While there are “protesters” who aren’t violent, most protesters are not peaceably assembled particularly if they did not follow established laws to peaceably assemble and they infringe on the rights of others. Too many protesters seem to think they have the right to unlawfully stop traffic, impede or harass others who may be passing by, and show disrespect for others and for law and order… just because they’re protesting. 

In my mind, as soon as any protester infringes on the rights of anyone else, and fellow protesters do not stop the unconstitutional action, the protest is no longer Constitutional. How often are protests “organized” but fail to follow local and/or state laws so the protesters can be peaceably assembled? Many of those to attend the protest may not even realize the protest is disregarding local and/or state laws that are put into place to protect the rights and liberties of all.

I come across to some people as arrogant or unfriendly because I haven’t talked to them or because I don’t make efforts to engage with them. But I’m not an extrovert. I feel like my energy gets sapped when I’m around others, particularly around strangers and groups of people. Throughout much of my life I have been exceptionally timid around others. But how many people have actually taken the time to understand me? Those who label me with these and other labels (mostly extroverts), don’t understand why introverts do or don’t do things. And those of us who are introverts have a hard time understanding those who like to be among lots of people. As I have continued through life it seems to me the world is biased against introverts, with extroverts often having the advantages where extroversion is rewarded and introversion is seen as a handicap.

Back to the tweet, the statement, “If your antiracism activism doesn’t speak for itself it doesn’t exist” is highly subjective. The statement makes the assumption that if you’re not racist you should be involved with antiracism activism, implying marches, protests, etc. For some people this statement could even come across as arrogant and offensive. 

If you don’t take the time and make the effort to even try to understand others, then you are the one who is acting in a biased and prejudiced manner if you judge others based solely on your preferences, opinions, thoughts, and perceptions. You are assuming that you are right and others are wrong, just because they don’t think and act like you.

The irony is so many activists say they fight for respect, acceptance, equality, fairness, and dignity, but they fail to give the same to those of differing thoughts and opinions.

Unfortunately racism does exist. Sometimes it is intentional. Sometimes it is unintended. But often education and understanding can erase unintended racism. 

And all those who point their fingers and cry out “racism” also need to get off their lofty horses and try to understand others.

Maybe if we learned to communicate better, first trying to understand others instead of disrespectfully pushing what we want on them, we could work things out and come to a mutual understanding. Doesn't mean we will change someone's viewpoint, but we can respectfully disagree and understand how something said or done may be hurtful to another.

Maybe people would actually learn that much of the perceived racism isn’t seen the same way by others. If others learn through respectful dialog and education how something is hurtful, hateful, or offensive maybe a better way will be more accepted.

A big problem many people have is they see or hear something they disagree with (or even hate) and then they instantly disrespect (or jump right to hate) the person, instead of focusing on the action. The activist often goes off on how the person needs to change this, that, or the other thing. Fingers start pointing at the "offender" and the offender is criticized, belittled, mocked, made fun of, and given no respect. Labels are thrown at the person, "racist", "bigot", "homophobic", etc. 

When people are attacked, they become defensive and the chances of you winning them to your side diminish. Chances of you helping them understand your side drop.

The Lord condemned sin, but he still loved the person.

There are two things we can focus on, instead of the person.

Those who are offended need to focus on how the perceived offense (it may or may not have been intentional) was unacceptable, inappropriate, and how it makes them feel. They can help identify better, more acceptable, alternatives to what was said or done. The advantage with this tactic is the "offender" isn't being attacked so they're much less likely to go on the defensive and not listen. In relationship building if we focus on how something makes us feel, rather than verbally attacking the other person it can help build bridges of understanding. 

For example, if someone says something insensitive to me I can say, "You're always so insensitive" and instantly get their defense up with the verbal attack, or maybe even cause them to retreat in fear, with neither response strengthening the relationship. Or I could say something like, "I really feel hurt inside when you make those comments." The first reaction is focused on the person. The second makes it more about me and the action of the other person, not the person him/herself.

The other thing we can do is try to understand the why behind what the person said or did. Often there is no mal-intent, just ignorance of how words and actions might make others think or feel. If we make the effort, finding common ground, we will discover there is much more that can unite us, even though we have some differences, than things that truly divide us.

How often do you see either thing happening? Rarely. The most common responses are attacks on the "offending" persons or groups they belong to. Result: increased disrespect, division, hate, anger, and verbal attacks that often end in violence.

Returning to the tweet, I believe it was not intended as offensive rather as a motivator to get people to stand up for rights and liberties of all people. However, the tweet could easily be seen as a personal attack on anyone who is not an activist in the eyes of the tweet's authors. And not just an attack but an accusation and equating those who are not activists to being like serial killers. In my opinion, that's not necessarily the best way to start or even build a relationship.

In the subjective opinion of tweet's authors, if you're not an antiracism activist then you are a racist. Which also means if your understanding of racism doesn't match theirs, you're wrong. 

While I do my best to respect others, it does cause me to bristle inside when someone (particularly an activist) is not open-minded or respectful enough to accept differences and thinks/believes others are wrong just because others don't think, speak, act, or respond the same way the activist does.

Just as a final note, I saw this tweet back in July 2020 and wrote most of the above in draft form soon after. It's taken me until now (November) to finish and publish my thoughts. A big part of the reason it took so long is I didn't want to rush and make some statement without giving it more thought and consideration. 

Too many people are too quick to open their mouths, put blinders on their eyes, and fixate their minds on their own opinions and beliefs, and they are not quick or willing enough to open their ears to listen, and their hearts to feel with compassion and understanding.