A while ago Randy Pouwels suggested that in using the phrase "ontological"
racism I might actually mean "existential" racism. Probably it's a better
word. Should just keep it simple I guess :-).
The point I was trying to make is that racism isn't a permanent condition which
defines a person's being. Yet U.S. Americans tend to talk about racism (if
they're not too cowed by the fire of fashionable correct-line anti-p.c. to even
raise the subject ;-) ) in this way. "So and so is a racist" or "So and so
isn't a racist". This happens on both ends of the discussions, producing
non-sequiturs and lots of miscommunication.
Here are several common forms of argument that exemplify what I mean, none of
which follow logically in my view:
--A person does, says etc. a racist thing, therefore everything about the
person is racist.
--A person doesn't see him or herself as a racist, doesn't intend his or her
words or acts to be racist, therefore they aren't.
--A person comes from a group which has historically been the subject of racist
attacks, therefore that person's words or actions can't be racist.
--The pattern of a person's words and actions taken as whole has been
anti-racist, therefore new words or actions by him or her can't be racist.
I know some folks have expressed boredom with the topic of racism but can we
yawn it away any more than we can wish it away? We all have to live with the
reality, & I think we need to be able to talk & think about it. It's going to
come up again and again as African history & studies move on. This is offered
in the spirit of hope for clearer distinctions and better dialogue.