The BBC‘s John Simpson was shown on last night’s TV news interviewing the late Pim Fortuyn. Fortuyn said something along the lines of: “we have guests who are trying to take over the house.” Said Simpson: “That sounds very racist to me.” Replied Fortuyn: “Give me a definition of racist.” At which point the BBC report ended.
I sympathise with Fortuyn on this. If ever there was a word that can mean several different things within the same conversation, or even the same paragraph or sentence, that word is “racist”. David Carr and I had an exchange on Samizdata not long ago in which I said that the number of definitions of “multiculturalism” was two, while he replied that it was zero. Number of definitions of “racist”? Well, let’s see how many we can think of.
- Believing that races differ from each other.
- Believing that races differ from each other in important ways, like intelligence or physical abilities.
- Believing that races differ from each other in important ways, like intelligence or physical abilities, for genetic reasons rather than because of cultural or environmental circumstances.
- Believing that because of such differences, members of different races should have different political rights.
- Believing that a particular group of people who are racially different are also different in their culture.
- Believing that a particular group of people who are racially different are also different in their culture, for genetic rather than historically contingent reasons.
- Not liking the different culture associated with a different race and wanting that culture changed, opposed, corrected, or confronted.
- Because of believing that a member of a different race is likely to be different in a particular way, believing that this particular member of the different race is himself likely to be different in this particular way.
- Believing that this particular member of a different race is different in this way, even when you have got to know him individually and know that it isn’t so.
- Believing that all the members of a particular race should be murdered.
I haven’t polished this list, or tried to make it exhaustive. I’ve listed ten different meanings, but if you took as long doing your version of the list as I have just taken doing mine, it would probably contain a different number of items, and if you took as long as you needed to get yours exactly right, your list would probably be a lot longer (as would mine). But my point here is not to start a “how many meanings and exactly what are they?” debate.
My point is merely the simpler one that according to some definitions of “racist” almost everybody is racist, while according to other definitions, hardly anyone is.
Who does not believe, for example, that races differ from one another? Who but a total ignoramus about the world and its ways sincerely believes that there is no such thing as a cultural difference associated with any racial difference, anywhere?
But, so frightened are we of being called racist that we would sooner deny everything on the list, whoever compiled it, rather than risk being thus labelled. The few brave or perhaps brutal souls who are prepared to admit to “racism”, that is, who tick yes to some of the items on the list, even as they strenuously deny others, demonstrate with their fate why denying everything makes sense.
Yet for the majority of thinking people to be denying everything is also very dangerous, because important truths get neglected in public debate, such as the exact truth about Muslim culture, and the exact things that ought, and ought not, to be done about this truth.
Equally dangerous is that if, under challenge from someone like Mr. Le Pen, any of the items on the list are admitted through clenched teeth to be true, it is then liable to be assumed that therefore the entire racist agenda, racist by any definition, has been acknowledged to be correct, when in fact defensive lines can be dug in between different items, and should be. It is assumed, that is to say, that the one huge defensive line must be drawn this side of “racism” by any definition. But this is to concede that no worthwhile lines can or should be drawn between different items on the list.
It is this latter syndrome that the nastier racists stand ready to exploit, as soon as any of their more obviously true complaints are conceded to have merit. I can see why lots of the people who read things like Samizdata want even quite nasty racists to do well electorally. Few of such readers are themselves nasty racists, but they want some of the more obvious truths about racial matters to be faced rather than funked in public debate. The trouble is that the nasty racists won’t stop there. They’ll use what power they are able to garner with the truth to spread untruths and to do truly nasty things.
For further intelligent thoughts on this subject, see Natalie Solent‘s posting last night. As for what she posted in the morning, let me just say: my sentiments exactly. Thanks Natalie.
