Of course. Either he believes those ridiculous things or is using a different definition of racism. If he is using a different definition then he should indicate why his is superior and not pretend to be talking about what everyone else is talking about when they say racism.
He’s talking about what I’m talking about when I talk about racism.
I would also still like to hear you explain your definition of racism. You said “Racism is the belief in the inherent inferiority of other races because of animus.”
That “because of animus” is a very interesting addition, one I can’t find in online dictionaries. For example (lightly edited to remove things like links to pronunciations):
Here’s Dictionary.com
Here’s Google:
Oxford
Merriam-Webster
Since you included “because of animus,” can you explain how that changes your definition? What would cause a belief in the inherent inferiority of other races? What would we call a belief in the inherent inferiority of other races were it not “because of animus”?
I added that to prevent confusion. If just say that racism is a belief in racial superiority you could say that such obvious beliefs such as the superiority of west Africans in sprinting or some east Africans in distance running is racism. Or something like Asian Americans commit fewer crimes than white Americans. Since committing crimes is bad that statement could be then interpreted as racist. Including the word inherent in the definition should take care of most of that but I think it is clearer with the animus part. However, it is probably true that animus can exist without the superiority part and that should be included as well.
The problem with defining much of the things on Richard Parkers list of trivialities as racism is that instead of making those concerns more urgent you are making ending racism less urgent. You can only cry wolf so many times before people stop listening to you, and if you are interested in fighting actual racism then keeping the power of that word is important and useful.
What about superiority without the animus? If someone believes that black people are so inferior in intelligence and moral judgment that they should be reduced to slavery for their own safety, but bears no animus towards them? Would you seriously argue that this person’s beliefs aren’t racist?
Different strategies can be more or less effective in different circumstances. It was the definition Richard Parker uses (and the surrounding history of why that definition can be accurate and useful) that convinced me of how powerful and evil racism in America is, and why it must be opposed with such vigor.
The problem with this is that race is such a provocative topic, labeling non-racist behavior as racist obscures solutions and makes them less likely.
Take your prosecutor example. He is not being racist. If you label his behavior racist it makes the solution less likely. Firstly because he is rightly going to deny being a racist and dismiss the concerns of those making the accusation. Secondly because the diagnosis is wrong the treatment will be wrong too. Say you convince the prosecutors boss that he is racist and the prosecutor is sent to training where we learns not to hate black people. When he gets out nothing will be solved. So then the boss replaces him with a black guy who did the same research as him and the problem is still not solved. However, if you treat the problem as an empirical one and show him the data that his research is wrong, he changes his mind and the problem is fixed.
This is just a semantics disagreement. “Racist” is often used both in the way you use it and the way Richard Parker used it. Different people can be swayed by different arguments and rhetorical styles, and I think all approaches can be effective in different circumstances.
To argue we can’t call people racist is to argue that no person can be considered a liar or a murderer. Your actions are what define who you are. For “murderer”, you need to murder only once. For “liar,” you generally need to have a habit of lying. For “racist,” I propose we have something in between, where highly racist actions may only need a few instances, but lower level racism may need to be a habit.
To claim that you are not racist at all is also just faulty. It means that you think you are incapable of a racist act, and thus you will inherently be blind to your own actions. That’s the “base desire” concept.
Humans are naturally tribalistic. We form tribes based on the people we perceive as being “like us.” And that will include visual markers. The way we become less racist is to notice these tendencies and subvert them. If we instead say they aren’t there, then we will wind up doing things that hurt people.
It’s like claiming you have no dark impulses. That you’ve never wanted to hurt anyone. That you’ve never wanted to steal something. We all have bad thoughts, but we don’t give into them.
I see no reason racism would be some special exception. It’s like those people who say they “don’t see color.” It doesn’t stop them from doing racist things. They just aren’t aware of it.
The problem with the idea that racism is like anger, in that everybody has it, is that it cheapens the word and the concept of racism. Its like if murderer meant person who kills and person who occasionally loses his temper.
Racism can either mean a bad thing that people should be harshly punished for or a nuisance that everybody has. Trying to define it as both at the same time causes problems, people will think you mean one definition and not the other. So accusations of nuisance racism will ruin people’s lives while actual racism will be ignored. We are fast approaching a time when accusations of racism will lose any power to shock or motivate. In the meantime people are going to be hurt by the confusion.
I continue to reject this premise.