Every
statement you don’t like is not necessarily racist, and calling any person a
racist who says or does something you don’t like solves nothing.
Donald Trump
uses the name “Pocahontas” when referring to Elizabeth Warren. While some might for some reason find that
insensitive or stupid, it is not racist.
Racist is defined as: “showing or
feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing
that a particular race is superior to another.”
While some would like to assume and proclaim that these are Mr. Trump’s
personal beliefs, they need better proof than this reference to support their
assertions.
Referring to Ms. Warren as “Pocahontas” in
no way suggests discrimination against people of other races since Ms. Warren,
despite her attempts to claim otherwise, is Caucasian. Calling this racist is something that some
choose to read into the use of the name simply because of their dislike of the
one using it. It is certainly not racist
to call someone who claimed a false heritage for personal gain a name
associated with the race which she claimed.
Indeed, her defense of her claim – that her grandfather had “high
cheekbones” – is probably more racist (in the same way that characterizing Asians
by the shape of their eyes is seen as racist).
Now, many of
Trump’s pet names for opponents may seem juvenile to some, even while they are
often a shorthand way of pointing out a key flaw that is in some way
relevant. Used on the campaign trail
they certainly are an effective sound-bite in an environment in which everyone,
including the media, wants a short and pungent representation to capture a
point, rather than any sort of in-depth discussion of an issue.
Sometimes
these pet names anger those who would rather overlook the flaw that they point
out. To respond by calling the one using
the name a bully or racist cheapens the real meaning of those labels. Racism does exist. Calling someone who falsely claimed herself
to be a Native American “Pocahontas” is not racism. To call it so is to redefine racism in a way
that makes the terms racist and racism almost meaningless. That is, terms with significant and legal
consequence are redefined as simply a way to hurl insults at someone you
don’t like or to deflect your being caught in some wrong-doing, not unlike the
name-calling that happens on a first-grade playground. (Perhaps we should remember the schoolyard
chant: “sticks and stone will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”) First graders are still learning about
civility, and how to discuss and deal with disagreements. We expect grown ups to have matured.
We also expect
adults to have reached the intellectual level and mentality beyond the purely
emotionally reactive – a level where they can distinguish a person from his or
her views. Many people do not like
President Trump the man, finding him un-refined in a sort of nouveau riche sort
of way, or have other reasons for disliking the man. That does not mean that he is a racist. It does not mean that every one of his
policies or positions is in some way racist.
Even if he were a racist, it does not necessarily follow that the
policies of his administration are all racist.
Neither does the fact that his policies are not yours make those
policies racist. And, it does not make
every one of his supporters or supporters of his policies a racist.
We could
ignore all this if things like the response to his using “Pocahontas” was an
isolated incident. But it is not. Many on the left – those still unable to
accept that someone who does not hold their views was elected as president –
would redefine much in this world simply to achieve their own desires. So,
they redefine what is racist in order to spew condemnation at their president. They redefine “free speech” as speech with
which they agree; they redefine “due process” to mean that simply being accused
is sufficient “process” to find one guilty; they would have lawmakers place the needs and
wants of non-citizens and illegal immigrants above the needs of the citizens whom
those lawmakers are elected to represent and whose needs it is those lawmakers’
duty to address; they encourage a
special prosecutor to well exceed the scope and limits of his authority; they redefine
most any acceptable behavior as only that which furthers their own cause. This is very dangerous indeed.
Rules are
becoming meaningless. There is a name
for a society without clear rules: it is
called an anarchy and is defined as: “a
state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority” as well as “absence
of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded [by some] as a
political ideal.” I would argue
that those who see this as an ideal are those who have not matured past the first-grade
playground and its emotionally driven and self-centered need for immediate
gratification, without measured consideration or contemplation, and without civility
or respect for others.
Instead of
redefining or eliminating rules, instead of acting like immature children, we
need to learn to slow down and think.
The first grader reacts to what he or she doesn’t like by name
calling. But the adult finds a better
way to consider and correct the problem.
Calling Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” may make some people
uncomfortable, perhaps primarily because it immediately points out her
fraudulent claims. The way to deal with
that discomfort is not to scream racist, but to confront the underlying facts
that gave rise to the name. The way to
address policies with which one disagrees is not to call those who support those
policies racist, but to advocate for changes in the policies, explaining their
shortcomings and working with their supporters to reach a mature and better
compromise. The way to make a better
world is not to do away with rules, but to respect them and, when logic
requires, improve them.
No comments:
Post a Comment