Racism fundamentally attracts the lowest dregs of human society, insecure and ineffectual rejects who find solace in their caustic views. Racism itself differs from other forms of discrimination, as the social concept of race is formulated such that it is believed to be individually unchangeable, a physical characteristic determined by genetics, deterministic and devoid of human agency. Ethnic discrimination as a whole, though still deeply rooted in insecurity and a fear of the other, is not necessarily tied to ones inherent physical characteristics, but focuses on the other’s cultural practices, such as their language or dress, which can be altered to some extent by individual action. One of an “inferior” culture could assimilate, adopt the practices and customs of the prevailing group, and potentially find some acceptance among bigots. Racism, on the other hand, is the further belief that one’s ethnicity, culture, and even individual behavior is inherently tied to unalterable physical characteristics, usually genetics, and that any attempt to change one’s behavior is futile. That, by virtue of belonging to some race, one must hold certain characteristics, inferior or superior to one another.
The interesting thing about racist ideology, or as its adherents term it, “racial science,” is that every practitioner always finds irrefutable evidence that his racial category, however defined, is fundamentally superior to all others. Of course, the racial categories themselves differ with every practitioner, as race itself, despite protestations, is no physical reality. The boundaries of racial categories shift continuously decade by decade and person to person, fluctuating with social realities. Countless treatises had been published on the scientific racial inferiority of the Irish people throughout the nineteenth century, yet few white supremacists today would scorn Irish ancestry, believing them to be proud members of the white race. In fact, the concept of racial categories as biological reality did not exist in any literature prior to the advent of racialism in late eighteenth century Europe. This only highlights the delusion of racial thinking, which pivots on the believed immalleable nature of racial categories.
The comfort to the racist is then the removal of agency, the futility of individual action. The racist can then sit back, taking solace in the belief that no matter what he does, he will always be the superior, the possessor of divine genetics. In my personal experience, the greatest human failures are the most susceptible to racist thinking for this reason, that despite their own massive shortcomings, they believe themselves to hold some value over others due to their racial identity. Not only do they find that they hold some value through this, they believe that they hold a superior status over much of the world. They convince themselves that despite their pitiful state, they are in some way better than all others, usually through some belief in their intellect, despite the fact that their supposed intellectual ability has seemingly borne no fruit. If not intellect, it may be a superiority in masculinity or physical ability. Online forums are filled with threads of unathletic men sharing images of bodybuilders of their racial category, as some sort of evidence that their heritage produces the most masculine men. Of course, being that they themselves are not bodybuilders, this proves nothing aside from the fact that they all have hundreds of images of nearly nude muscular men on their hard drives. Through this delusion, an unemployed high school dropout can arrogantly boast about his superiority over a tenured university professor publicly without dissonance or shame, solely on the belief that he is white and his target is not.
What angers me most is the national “we” often taken on in rhetoric by bigots. This statement, in their mind, is meant to exclude others from the cultural achievements of their “race.” Everyone has heard rhetoric of “we built this city” or “we conquered this land” and so on. More intriguing to me than the exclusion of others in this statement is the inclusion of oneself on behalf of the bigot. What claim does he have to the glory of past achievements? He himself has done nothing, achieved nothing, especially not on the scale of monumental city building or groundbreaking scientific discovery. They argue, “we invented the technology you use today,” yet the people who did invent it have practically no relation to bigot, there was no personal involvement on behalf of the one attempting to exclude others as well as to include himself. Through this, the most useless of people can find accomplishment. Though he may not be able to hold down a simple job, he may find solace in the belief that his racial compatriots in centuries prior may have invented the telephone, or built the Kremlin, or conquered France, or ruled Rome. These achievements, by means of racialist delusion, now become his own, and he can look unto them with pride and arrogance above all others.
Leave a Reply