In the Democratic presidential debate on Saturday night, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley offhand referred to Donald Trump as a "racist carnival barker." I like "carnival barker." It's good satire. It's funny. It picks on the Donald for less than laudable character traits and -- as is appropriate for a Democratic politician in that sort of format -- casts significant doubts in the minds of would-be voters as to whether or not Trump would be a good choice for the highest office in the land. I am, however, bothered by O'Malley's assertion that Trump is a racist. I'm even more bothered by the fact that this epithet, which has been leveled at the Donald repeatedly since his much ballyhooed announcement of his candidacy, seems to be more or less uncritically accepted by Trump's political opponents as a truism. While it is undoubtedly true that the Donald said some not so nice and probably insensitive things about people who emigrate to the United States from Mexico (illegally, by the way, Trump has numerous times clarified that his comments do not pertain to legal immigrants), those comments are not racist in themselves and by no means provide any clear proof that Donald Trump is a racist.
I should clarify a couple of things here before I go on to make my case. First, I am not claiming that Trump is not a racist. He may or may not be. I don't know the Donald beyond what I've seen on TV. For all I know, he may be the very embodiment of the kind of man Homer Simpson claimed to be when he was trying to get out of jury duty: i.e. "prejudiced against all races." All I'm arguing here is that his comments weren't, technically speaking -- and this is important -- racist as such.
Secondly, this is not a defense of nor an endorsement for Donald Trump as either a person or a presidential candidate. I'm only obliquely concerned with Donald Trump at all. What I'm really concerned about in the ongoing rhetoric about Trump's racism is the sloppy and incorrect usage of the term "racist." My stance here towards those who accuse Donald Trump of racism is that of Inigo Montoya to Viccini in The Princess Bride when he questions him about his usage of the term "inconceivable": i.e. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The issue is one of language. See, the problem is that language follows usage, so if we keep using the word incorrectly, then it loses the meaning it has had and therefore uses its utility in the production of cultural meaning. I'm a professor of language and literature. I read, write, and try to teach others to do the same. Words are the tools that I work with. It concerns me when they get distorted and bent out of shape because then I can't use them anymore, at least not in the way that they were designed to be useful to me. My dad is, among other things, a mechanic. He used to get justifiably a little upset at my brothers and me when we were kids for misusing his tools because if we lost or broke them, then he didn't have them when he needed them. That's how I feel about words. It's important to keep them where they belong so that they're there when we need them. My post is thus linguistic more than it is political. Put another way, though I am in fact a registered Republican, it is not as a Republican that the misuse of the term "racist" offends me, it is as a linguist. I feel a little bit like Jerry Seinfeld in the "Anti-Dentite" episode, where his dentist, Nick Watley converts to Judaism for the jokes; he notes that the conversion offends him not as a Jew, but as a comedian. Anyway, on to the case that Trump's remarks were not racist.
Before looking at the remarks themselves, I should, of course, attempt to settle what the term "racist" means. I'm going to make the assumption that we can rely on the folks working over at Merriam-Webster to do this for us. Their dictionary provides two working definitions of racism. The first reads, "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" and the second is "racial prejudice or discrimination." The second seems to be the one most people are attributing to the Donald in his comments on Mexican immigrants.
The thing is, though, that Mexicanity (thanks to the venerable Michael Scott for this handy term) is not, properly speaking, a race. It's a nationality. And in this day and age, one imagines that there are people of numerous races who are, in fact, Mexican. Thus, even if we grant that the Donald is prejudiced against people from Mexico -- and I don't know that we can safely say that he is; he did after all, even in his most strident comments against the (illegal) immigrants, be careful to note that "some [Mexican (illegal) immigrants], I assume, are good people" -- that does not necessarily make him a racist, because Mexicanity is not a race.
I suppose that many of the Donald's detractors are trying to make the case that his comments betray a general prejudice against people of Hispanic descent. A case that, by the way, is a completely unfair stretching of his actual comments. Seriously, look at them again and leave your own prejudices against Donald Trump in particular and conservatives in general at the door. They don't say anything about Cubans, South Americans, El Salvadorians, Americans of Hispanic descent, etc. They are limited to Mexican (illegal) immigrants. Yet, even if we grant that the Donald is denigrating Hispanics, according to FBI race codes, even that wouldn't make the comments racist, technically speaking, because "Hispanic" refers not to a race, but an ethnicity. Ethnicity is a marker that includes race, among other things, in its distinguishing capacity, but it is a much larger concept. You might argue that this makes Trump's comments more offensive, not less. Perhaps. But they are not "racist."
One might ask why it is important to be so precise. Well, aside from the general idea of the utility of language that I've referred to above, it is important to limit the term "racism" to its actual meaning because the thing it refers to is important. Discrimination against a people on account of their race is an odious thing. This becomes obvious when we look at historically racist institutions, e.g. Nazi Germany, the ante-bellum American South, etc. We are repeatedly told that racism is still a lingering problem in our country, and it probably to some extent is, but if we are to work towards eradicating it, it seems to me important that we don't sloppily conflate the issue with arguments about the relative merits and demerits of broader cultural and ethnic groups. We run into a similar confusion in our conversations about Islam, which is, of course neither a race nor an ethnicity but a religion. Any conversation about Islam that employs the terms "race" or "racism" is problematic from the start because it miscategorizes the issue by misusing the terms of discussion.
I think it's important to protect a term like "racism" from suffering the same linguistic fate that the term "barter" has suffered in the English language. Of course, the folks down at Merriam-Webster are holding the line on "barter," reminding us that it means, "to trade by exchanging one commodity for another," but we are probably all are familiar with friends who have innocently yet ignorantly used the term in place of "haggle," which means to negotiate over price. The barter/haggle confusion is a textbook instance of needless degeneration of language. We don't need to confuse the definition of barter; we have a word for what we want to say. The sloppy usage of "racism" puts the word in danger of suffering the same confusion as "barter," and the cultural stakes of unsettling "racism" as a moniker are much higher than a few dollars saved on a purchase.
As with barter/haggle, we don't have to misuse the term "racist" when discussing Donald Trump's comments on Mexican (illegal) immigrants. There are words available to describe the insensitive tone of the Donald's remarks. In fact, I've just used one: "insensitive." Personally, I prefer the term "boorish." I especially like boorish because, not only is it more accurate, but when the adjective, which can be used to describe the Donald's comments, is put into the noun form, boor, it still seems to accurately describe the Donald's person. And it does so in a way that still gives me pause when considering him as a candidate for the presidency.
Of course, "boor" is not as damning as "racist." Being a boor probably does not disqualify one for public office in the same way that being a racist does. Boorish remarks can still be funny, as when the Donald noted that Hillary Clinton is running for president in order to stay out of prison. (In the words of Mater the tow-truck, "That's funny right there.") I suspect this is the reason Trump's opponents prefer the less-accurate epithet of "racist," but that's a discussion for another time, and I don't want to speculate on political motives here anyway. What I do want to do is urge us as a culture to be more careful and precise in how we use language.
I should clarify a couple of things here before I go on to make my case. First, I am not claiming that Trump is not a racist. He may or may not be. I don't know the Donald beyond what I've seen on TV. For all I know, he may be the very embodiment of the kind of man Homer Simpson claimed to be when he was trying to get out of jury duty: i.e. "prejudiced against all races." All I'm arguing here is that his comments weren't, technically speaking -- and this is important -- racist as such.
Secondly, this is not a defense of nor an endorsement for Donald Trump as either a person or a presidential candidate. I'm only obliquely concerned with Donald Trump at all. What I'm really concerned about in the ongoing rhetoric about Trump's racism is the sloppy and incorrect usage of the term "racist." My stance here towards those who accuse Donald Trump of racism is that of Inigo Montoya to Viccini in The Princess Bride when he questions him about his usage of the term "inconceivable": i.e. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The issue is one of language. See, the problem is that language follows usage, so if we keep using the word incorrectly, then it loses the meaning it has had and therefore uses its utility in the production of cultural meaning. I'm a professor of language and literature. I read, write, and try to teach others to do the same. Words are the tools that I work with. It concerns me when they get distorted and bent out of shape because then I can't use them anymore, at least not in the way that they were designed to be useful to me. My dad is, among other things, a mechanic. He used to get justifiably a little upset at my brothers and me when we were kids for misusing his tools because if we lost or broke them, then he didn't have them when he needed them. That's how I feel about words. It's important to keep them where they belong so that they're there when we need them. My post is thus linguistic more than it is political. Put another way, though I am in fact a registered Republican, it is not as a Republican that the misuse of the term "racist" offends me, it is as a linguist. I feel a little bit like Jerry Seinfeld in the "Anti-Dentite" episode, where his dentist, Nick Watley converts to Judaism for the jokes; he notes that the conversion offends him not as a Jew, but as a comedian. Anyway, on to the case that Trump's remarks were not racist.
Before looking at the remarks themselves, I should, of course, attempt to settle what the term "racist" means. I'm going to make the assumption that we can rely on the folks working over at Merriam-Webster to do this for us. Their dictionary provides two working definitions of racism. The first reads, "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" and the second is "racial prejudice or discrimination." The second seems to be the one most people are attributing to the Donald in his comments on Mexican immigrants.
The thing is, though, that Mexicanity (thanks to the venerable Michael Scott for this handy term) is not, properly speaking, a race. It's a nationality. And in this day and age, one imagines that there are people of numerous races who are, in fact, Mexican. Thus, even if we grant that the Donald is prejudiced against people from Mexico -- and I don't know that we can safely say that he is; he did after all, even in his most strident comments against the (illegal) immigrants, be careful to note that "some [Mexican (illegal) immigrants], I assume, are good people" -- that does not necessarily make him a racist, because Mexicanity is not a race.
I suppose that many of the Donald's detractors are trying to make the case that his comments betray a general prejudice against people of Hispanic descent. A case that, by the way, is a completely unfair stretching of his actual comments. Seriously, look at them again and leave your own prejudices against Donald Trump in particular and conservatives in general at the door. They don't say anything about Cubans, South Americans, El Salvadorians, Americans of Hispanic descent, etc. They are limited to Mexican (illegal) immigrants. Yet, even if we grant that the Donald is denigrating Hispanics, according to FBI race codes, even that wouldn't make the comments racist, technically speaking, because "Hispanic" refers not to a race, but an ethnicity. Ethnicity is a marker that includes race, among other things, in its distinguishing capacity, but it is a much larger concept. You might argue that this makes Trump's comments more offensive, not less. Perhaps. But they are not "racist."
One might ask why it is important to be so precise. Well, aside from the general idea of the utility of language that I've referred to above, it is important to limit the term "racism" to its actual meaning because the thing it refers to is important. Discrimination against a people on account of their race is an odious thing. This becomes obvious when we look at historically racist institutions, e.g. Nazi Germany, the ante-bellum American South, etc. We are repeatedly told that racism is still a lingering problem in our country, and it probably to some extent is, but if we are to work towards eradicating it, it seems to me important that we don't sloppily conflate the issue with arguments about the relative merits and demerits of broader cultural and ethnic groups. We run into a similar confusion in our conversations about Islam, which is, of course neither a race nor an ethnicity but a religion. Any conversation about Islam that employs the terms "race" or "racism" is problematic from the start because it miscategorizes the issue by misusing the terms of discussion.
I think it's important to protect a term like "racism" from suffering the same linguistic fate that the term "barter" has suffered in the English language. Of course, the folks down at Merriam-Webster are holding the line on "barter," reminding us that it means, "to trade by exchanging one commodity for another," but we are probably all are familiar with friends who have innocently yet ignorantly used the term in place of "haggle," which means to negotiate over price. The barter/haggle confusion is a textbook instance of needless degeneration of language. We don't need to confuse the definition of barter; we have a word for what we want to say. The sloppy usage of "racism" puts the word in danger of suffering the same confusion as "barter," and the cultural stakes of unsettling "racism" as a moniker are much higher than a few dollars saved on a purchase.
As with barter/haggle, we don't have to misuse the term "racist" when discussing Donald Trump's comments on Mexican (illegal) immigrants. There are words available to describe the insensitive tone of the Donald's remarks. In fact, I've just used one: "insensitive." Personally, I prefer the term "boorish." I especially like boorish because, not only is it more accurate, but when the adjective, which can be used to describe the Donald's comments, is put into the noun form, boor, it still seems to accurately describe the Donald's person. And it does so in a way that still gives me pause when considering him as a candidate for the presidency.
Of course, "boor" is not as damning as "racist." Being a boor probably does not disqualify one for public office in the same way that being a racist does. Boorish remarks can still be funny, as when the Donald noted that Hillary Clinton is running for president in order to stay out of prison. (In the words of Mater the tow-truck, "That's funny right there.") I suspect this is the reason Trump's opponents prefer the less-accurate epithet of "racist," but that's a discussion for another time, and I don't want to speculate on political motives here anyway. What I do want to do is urge us as a culture to be more careful and precise in how we use language.
Two questions: 1) How is discriminating against ethnicities morally better than discriminating against races? If it's not, why do we lose moral ground by conflating the two words?
ReplyDelete2) Given that languages change inevitably over time, what's the big deal with the changing definition of this particular word? You yourself trumpeted the value of a very recently-birthed word ("Mexicanity"), an offspring of the same linguistic creative process that you spend the rest of your article condemning. You said it's important to keep words in their cubbyholes so they're handy when we need them, but cultures have the right to rearrange their linguistic workshop, don't they?
These are good questions, Harrison. I do think that to the extent that an ethnicity involves conscious choices of cultural construction, and it does to some extent, it is morally more acceptable to be discriminating, though, in fairness, in our own discourse, race and ethnicity have become virtually interchangeable. I acknowledge that, I just thought it interesting that the FBI distinguishes between race and ethnicity in their own classification codes. I do think cultures have the right to rearrange their linguistic workshop, and of course they do it all the time. What our culture is doing with racist, though, is irresponsible. The problem with calling Trump a racist for what he said is that as soon as the label is accepted, he (and his argument) are disqualified from public discourse because of course we all accept racism as odious. It's really a form of ad hominem, but it also waters down the word because what Trump's saying isn't racist, and if it is accepted as such, then what do we do with rhetoric that really is racist? I suppose what I'm really taking exception to is the fact that this conflation of terms muddies the waters in what is already a very opaque and contentious field of social discourse. I find it wildly unhelpful. Unlike, for instance, the generalization of the word 'gentleman' from signifying landholder to someone with manners. Maybe someday 'racist' will come to mean just a person with generally insensitive views, but even typing that seems to me to show the absurdity of moving in that direction in our current cultural moment.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, we (more or less) lose the ability to think about the actual meaning of the word "racist" if we let the word change its meaning - we lose an category of thought. It's not rearranging the linguistic workshop but throwing tools away.
ReplyDeleteKinda like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2015/11/23/we-have-a-nazi-analogy-problem/