Dear Professors,
As we celebrate Black History Month (officially for the 46th time), we invite you to take a moment to consider the following fundamentally different point of view on how to effectively deal with the racism issue. Firstly, not many, one would think, will contest the statement that this whole struggle for racial justice and racial equality has taken, and is taking, very long in America and, secondly, and to compound matters, that the end does not really appear to be in sight for this struggle! One need only recall in this connection that the country’s first organized anti-racism protest, the so-called “Silent Protest Parade”, took place in New York in July 1917, meaning that this campaign has been going on for well over a century now!
Yet, the truth, as recognized by President Biden himself upon his election, is that, despite the undeniable progress that has been made, especially in the wake of the great Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and 70s, there remains an underlying systemic racism in society that refuses to go away and so continues to manifest itself in various ways on the ground: the George Floyd and George Floyd-type incidents, the near legitimization and “mainstreaming” of “white supremacy” ideologies and movements, showcased in the January 6th Capitol insurrection, and the innumerable reported “Karen” racist incidents of recent years.
Perhaps, there is a reason for this, a reason why all these efforts over many decades have failed to defeat or excise this social evil? That reason, it is suggested, may well lie in the nature of the problem and of the efforts directed at combating it. Racism is, in reality, a mindset issue, the outward expression of a racial bias mindset. Absent such a mindset, racist behavior becomes largely accidental or coincidental, as when someone unwittingly uses a racially derogatory word. Consequently, to successfully address the racism problem, one must concentrate on eradicating the racial bias mindset itself, rather than on curbing the acts of manifestation of the mindset, as has hither to been the case, essentially treating the symptoms rather than the causes of the disease: unless the mindset goes, its manifestations will only keep popping up continually, as the “police brutality” cases have shown despite adoption of many post-George Floyd preventive measures.
With eradication of the racial bias mindset as the strategic focus, one then must seek to identify those factors that create and/or sustain that mindset. Of such factors, a principal one, it is proposed, is the English language and the thought processes deriving from it. It all begins with the fact that embedded in that language, as in other major European languages, is a systemic denigration of “blackness” and corresponding glorification of “whiteness” as exemplified by such expressions as black list, black sheep, black spot, painting someone black, etc. and white knight, white magic, white lie, whiten something, such as a reputation, etc. This results in a veritable “blackness of bad/whiteness of good, badness of black/goodness of white” narrative, a narrative which, imbibed over a period, often from earliest childhood, and sustained throughout life in everyday language, must undoubtedly create a mindset conditioned, whether consciously or not, to shun or react negatively to “black” things, while embracing or favoring things categorized as “white”. If proof were needed of this “conditioning” theory, it will be found in the overwhelming number of people, including especially black people themselves, who, on being first acquainted with this analysis, express surprise, amazement, even indignation, saying “Wow, I never thought of it this way at all!” And yet, these are people who may have lived with the narrative and its related expressions all their lives, accepting them as the “normal” way of saying things and, so, unaware of the “unspoken politics” of it all!
This is normal human behavioral reaction, but one profoundly consequential to racial attitudes and race relations. Under this scenario, and in a process aided by the phenomenon of “word association” well-known to modern psychoanalysis, a black person easily becomes subsumed, even if subconsciously, into the general category of “black”, and, therefore, “bad”, things. This, in turn, triggers the preprogrammed negative reaction (bias) in the other person, regardless of intentions, prompting that person’s conscious mind, if aware and so inclined, to counter by separating the black person from the other “bad” “black” things. Indeed, the psychological inability to make this separation may well account for much existing racist disposition, including the police cases. One suspects also that this fear of subsumption may well explain why even such mainline African-American organizations as the NAACP shun the “Black” label! The white person, too, must, of course, cope with experiencing the conditioning process, even if able by conscious decision to counteract its effects, to a large extent.
What is going on here, it is submitted, is in fact the sociological phenomenon of “labeling” (more bluntly “stigmatization”) applied to “black” or “blackness”, such that the word itself becomes a term of abuse! The interesting case a few years ago of Luis Suarez, a star player of Liverpool Football Club in England, well-illustrates this point. Suarez was found guilty of racially abusing another player after a clash on the pitch, and heavily sanctioned by the Football Association, even though what he did was ask that player “Do you know you are black?” or “Don’t you know you are black?” Everyone agreed there had been racial abuse and that this centered on the use of the word “black”, yet wondered why calling a black player “black” should be a problem but not calling a white person “white”. The answer is very simple under our analysis: in asking his question, Suarez was not actually referencing the player’s race as a factual matter, but rather invoking all the negative associations and connotations (i.e. stigma) attaching to “black” in the language. By contrast to this, “white” is “pure” and has no negatives attached to or trailing it!
A notable development since this approach to the racism issue was first articulated is the practice by some print media editors of capitalizing references to black people (as in Black man). While this editorial gesture is to be commended as a show of awareness and of concern at the problem, its actual contribution to a solution is quite doubtful. Firstly, the overwhelming use of the term is in speech – everyday speech, in fact – not in print: recall the Suarez incident. More importantly, such capitalizing does nothing to de-stigmatize “blackness” in the mind of the reader (which really is the issue), and, if anything, may actually compound matters by highlighting it. In fact, the statement “a white man and a Black man” well-encapsulates the problem at hand!
Now, apart from being misused by those so inclined as a validating statement for a “white superiority” ethos, there is another hugely consequential“ byproduct” of the “blackness of bad/whiteness of good” narrative and mindset that may easily escape notice. This is its implicit endorsement, if not advocacy, of a hierarchy of races: one in which the white race sits at the top or “good” end, the black at the bottom or “bad” end, and the others fit in-between according to their perceived closeness to the respective end occupants, a foundational basis, for sure, for a “white supremacy” ideology and mindset!
It is only fair to point out, as already noted, that this is by no means a problem only of the English language, but is actually a common feature of other major European languages, e.g. French and Spanish. A well-known French adage, for example, tells it all. It goes like this: “La diable n’est pas si noir qu’ on le dit!”, translating essentially as “The devil is not as black as he is made out to be!” Our focus on English, however, is because of its growing dominance as the closest thing to a global language: making the change here will not only deal with a large swathe of the problem, but exert enormous pressure on the other languages to adapt, just as, for example, the invention some years back of “Ms.” did as regards addressing women without reference to marital status.
What then is to be done and what actually is the solution to this quandary? A simple and effective solution to the problem under this theory, is to find a way to delink race-designating terms like “black” and “white” from any value-conferring functions in the language, specifically eliminating the current figurative use of the terms “black” and “white” as qualitative assessment adjectives, as in the expressions cited above. Ideally, this should be accomplished by replacing these two terms in the relevant expressions by two newly-created terms that have no history or “baggage”, to give us “X sheep” and “Y knight”, for example, for “black sheep” and “white knight”, respectively, where X and Y represent the newly created substitutes conveying what “black” and “white” previously did. Of course, identifying and agreeing on such new terms can be a formidable challenge for a language such as English where there is not a single authority empowered to pronounce on its usage, as exists, for example, for French(Academie Francaise) or Spanish (Real Academia Espanola), but a way undoubtedly can and must be found – and the English-speaking academic community is well-placed to shoulder this initiative. The other option that may be considerably easier to adopt, though problematic in other ways, is to replace the terms “black” and “white” in these expressions with other “color” words that have no racial connotations e.g. “red” spot for “black” spot, or “grey” knight for “white” knight, etc.
With such delinking achieved and, consequently, no everyday usage reinforcement forthcoming, the two terms should in time become value-neutral and, therefore, mindset irrelevant, causing the“‘ black’ is bad, ‘white’ is good” narrative and mindset to eventually be erased. In short, “black” is stripped of its stigma, and “white” its glorification. Think of this: not only would the adult person, after a while, forget, but children born at the time would not even know, that “black” means “bad” and “white” good! It may be helpful to observe here, for reference purposes, that all of the foregoing matters are fully canvassed and comprehensively analyzed in my book, published some years back: OF BLACK SERVITUDE WITHOUT SLAVERY, The Unspoken Politics Of The English Language (http://www.amazon.com/dp/099683432X)
The complexity of achieving such a fundamental revamp of the language, especially in a democratic society, faced nevertheless with the imperative need to do so, calls for a special and innovative approach to handling the subject that would reconcile the expected divergent interests and points of view on such a sensitive subject. One idea might be the constituting of a broad-based Presidential Commission to study the matter, in consultation with other English-speaking countries, and make recommendations on how best to achieve the objective. In the meantime, those of us who believe in the merit of this idea should rally round to campaign for it in various forums and platforms to which we have access. The fact of the matter, one ventures to suggest, is that any objective assessment of the situation would in all likelihood yield to the validity of the analysis proffered on this matter, there appearing to be no obvious acceptable countervailing arguments!
Worthy of acknowledgement in this context are the various anti-racism movements and initiatives that have contributed to the cause over time, remembered in such identifiers and battle cries as Black Power, Black Panthers, Black Is Beautiful, Black History Month, Black Lives Matter, etc. These undeniably have played, and some still play, a crucial role in the equality struggle. However, focusing in their aims on what, we have argued, are merely the manifestations of a mindset, means that their success cannot, in the nature of things, but be limited and ultimately ephemeral – lasting only while attention remains on the subject. The built-in – and thus ever-present – nature of the “blackness of bad/whiteness of good” narrative makes this the “resident” idea and ensures that after a particular campaign has come and gone (including simply receding into the background), the underlying, if temporarily eclipsed, message will re-emerge to continue operating as before.
Two other final points to make on this. Firstly, while implementing the ideas outlined above to invalidate the “blackness of bad/whiteness of good” narrative and mindset is, as we have seen, the only true solution to the problem of acquisition and perpetuation of the racial bias mindset in society, it is obviously a long-term one. Consequently, it cannot be viewed as being, in lieu of, but rather as working in tandem with, the other conventional anti-racism measures that are typically more direct and immediate in impact. Secondly, while one may not know if eliminating the “blackness of bad/whiteness of good” mindset will be sufficient to end the problem of systemic racism in society, one is certain, on the other hand, that not doing so will surely guarantee that the problem never goes away! This is because unless “black” is de-stigmatized, the narrative-conditioned subconscious mind will always instinctively resist the idea of equality of “black” and “white”, tantamount in its scheme of things to seeking somehow to equate“ bad” with “good”!
We thank you ever so much for your patience and invite you to please get in touch with us at www.serial.global. Or post your comment at https://serial.global/forum.
Yours sincerely,
Agwu Ukiwe Okali, SJD (Harvard)
Former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General/
Registrar, United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
Founder-Chairman,
Society for the Elimination of Racism In All Language (SERIAL®)
Leave a Reply