[lbo-talk] Why we can't talk about it....[was Racism; was Farenheit 9/11]

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

> joanna wrote:
> 
> 
> I admit "racism" is a big topic. Still, I was
> unprepared for the many ways people didn't really want
> to talk about it. First, you had to show your
> passport: What is your race? That's bound to affect
> what you say about race and whether it is valid or
> not. Right? Then there was the argument that if the
> right mix of dominant and minority participants didn't
> happen, the discussion would not be meaningful. Next,
> it was feared the topic would be too big, too
> abstract, might veer off in too many directions...
> Finally, there was the "everyone understands racism in
> different ways..." relativistic objection.

"Racism" is like "god" "communism" "fascism" "patriotism" "treason" or
"family values" - a concept with a strong emotive meaning but poorly
defined contents and boundaries.  As a result it means anything the user
want it to mean, that is, nothing in particular.   This makes a useful
verbal assault weapon to shut your opponent without making an argument
and at the same tie without appearing too obviously irrational.  It is a
concept, one of many to be sure, that kills a discussion rather than
opening it.  

A useful point to start a discussion about the so-called "race
relations" is to forbid using the word "racism" in that discussion, and
instead refer to more tangible and better defined behavior patterns,
cognitive processes, and socio-economic status.

Wojtek