It is no secret that the terms “racist” and “racism” are thrown around in alarming ways nowadays. In the most popular sense, “racism” is simply a semantic bludgeoning device 
used to marginalize people into an incredulous category. More precisely put, people categorized this way are not trusted or credible once characterized as a racist, especially if they are done so repeatedly. As the term is popularly employed, the term is in no need of genuine meaning. If you cannot understand this, then you do not understand why the Maverick Philosopher rightly characterizes the term racist – as it is popularly employed – as a semantic bludgeoning device. The only condition one needs in order to use the word in this particular way is their own personal sentiments. If a person feels like something is racist, then it is and they are then in a position to use the term to chastise and admonish another individual with that term. A surefire way to know whether a person uses the term racist in this popular way, i.e. as bludgeoning device is to simply ask why whatever it is you said or did is in fact “racist”. Basically, you are asking a person to define what racism is and why what you said or did fits the definition. What you will mostly find is a person who”does not know” why what you say or think is racist; rather it “just is” racist. The consequences of this are you being left confused and also marginalized as something that has not yet been clearly define but nevertheless left you as mean-spirited and incredulous. But this is just the popular way “racist” is used today. I want to discuss the systematic or ideological sense in which the term is employed.
I am going to call this the systematic way of using the term racist. This is just an arbitrary way of me designating a particular usage of the term “racist”. I choose “systematic” because the term “racist” will derive it’s meaning completely out of a system – apart from this it has no meaning (on this usage). Since on this usage the term racist originates out of a system, one would have to accept the conditions of this system in order for them to accept the meaning of that term; otherwise, using it would suggest that this system just is true for everyone. This is precisely what Christians do with the term “love”. They presuppose that the word “love”, emerging out of their religion, corresponds to reality in a way that is applicable to everyone whether you believe in their religion or not. They believe it is just true for everyone, regardless of your sentiments. In a similar way, Liberals do much the same with the term “racist”, for as love rests upon Christianity for the Christian so too does “racist” rest upon the foundations of Liberalism for the Liberal. And what is that system?
Liberals do not define the human person since that would suggest there is a nature by which the definition can rest upon. The Liberal describes the human person in terms of uniqueness and will. The Liberal principle of uniqueness suggests that the human person is too diverse to put limitations (like a definition and set meaning) upon it. The human person then becomes something neutral – it doesn’t mean or designate anything as such. As something neutral, it possess the full potential of meaning and definition. Something will no doubt define it. But who? The individual. Liberalism promotes the notion of autonomy in such a radical way that it suggests the human person is the arbiter of it’s own meaning. Through the will, the human person determines what it means to be human for itself and goes on to create various traits that form an identity and personality. This is called the principle of autonomy or self-determination. As unique and therefore neutralized of any inherent meaning, the human person is then free to become whatever it determines for itself. Human means whatever a person chooses it to mean.
By suggesting a person is male, or heterosexual, or biologically determined to a set of people called “family”, we are sabotaging the foundations of Modern Liberalism or what James Kalb calls the “Triumph of Freedom”. Why? Traditionally, things like gender, what is called “sexual orientation”, and even family were not things a person had the option of choosing. These were inherent features embedded into a human person as they came into existence. For example, the particular gender of a person gives to it a certain meaning the person does not get to choose for example; something it only gets to respect and better understand throughout it’s life. In contrast, Liberals call these things “social constructs”. For example, gender is just a reflection of the majority consensus of a given culture on how men should behave. Therefore, it is arbitrary; it is not something real (unlike what the traditionalist thinks). The idea of inherent features has been the source of oppression, according to the Liberals. Returning to the example of gender, Feminists tell us that men have defined women as the weaker sex. Through various descriptions of femininity, men have controlled and directed women throughout history unfairly and oppressively. Liberalism presents itself as a savior by attempting to show us that inherent features which determine meaning for a person without their choosing causes tension and problems; the reality is that there are no inherent features but that these are simply chains that keep us fettered. Real, unadulterated freedom, the Liberal will tell us, begins with the understanding that we are neutral things and through our own wills and creativity design a meaning for ourselves.
But the Conservative has failed to Conserve the understanding of the human person. In order to stay relevant with the times, it has often – in a nuanced way – agreed with Liberalism’s take on the human person. Since Liberalism does not agree with the idea of any inherent features embedded into the human person, race can only be a “social construct” just as gender is or anything else for that matter. Simply put, it is not a real or meaningful category. Like the gender roles those patriarchal men imposed upon women generations ago, race is but another category used to oppress and divide people, according to the Liberal. Jared Taylor says Liberals prefer to think of race as an “optical illusion”.
The Liberal scoundrel uses all sorts of terms to marginalize a person as wicked and ignorant if and when they choose to suggest a person possesses any inherent features that would in any way go against the Liberal understanding of the human person as unique and autonomous (described above). By suggesting there are inherent features regarding gender, the term “sexist” is employed. By suggesting that any other orientation besides heterosexuality is natural, that person is characterized as a “homophobe”. By saying that a particular race may in fact possess certain characteristics inherently that differentiates them from another race means that you are a “racist”. There is no way around this, and this is precisely because, according to Liberalism, the individual human person cannot be held to any standard it did not choose for itself. This is an attack on their dignity as a human person, which again simply means a unique, autonomous or self-determining agent that creates meaning for itself. Suggesting anything against this understanding of the human person is an attack on human dignity, says the Liberal.
What “racist” then means is a person that suggests a human being can in any way be defined by their race; that race can in any way add to the meaning of “human” without our choosing it. “Racist” as a verb just means saying or doing things that would suggest races have inherent meaning or characteristics. If you do this in any way whatsoever, you will no doubt be characterized as a “racist” at some point in time. This is the systematic use of the term racism, because the use of the term only has meaning in relation to Liberalism as a movement or system, which assumes the human person has no inherent features and is completely free to define itself – regarding race, family, nationality, gender, religion and orientation. If you accept another calling you a “racist”, de facto you are accepting the truth of Liberalism. You cannot apologize for being “racist” in this way and disagree with Liberalism. Conservatives must challenge this term and the principle it is built on; they must reject this description altogether. But there is real danger in this and such a task is only for the courageous. For all intents and purposes, Liberalism has ushered in a Brave New World regarding human nature. Those of us who in any way think that human nature has inherent qualities or features are, much like the uncivilized savages in the book Brave New World, social outcasts and unwelcome to participate in the so-called civilized world community. A defense of human nature is a costly and risky venture – one that will only come with weightier consequences in the future. As semantics continue to evolve according to the domineering system of Liberalism, it will only be harder to think or speak in a contrary manner to it and so remain a “civilized, educated person”. The other option is denial of your values and a personal transformation according to the status quo. You choose.
Beyond the Wall 
Okay. I really need to educate you.
First off, it is not an IDEA that RACE is a social construct, it is a FACT. If you look into the history books, you will find that race was invented as a system that attempted to categorize people who looked similar on a grand scale. Because there are so many ethnicities in the world, people tried to lump them into large groups based on their appearance, most commonly primarily based on skin pigment or similar ethnic features. So the origin of “race” has no direct relation to anything biological.
ETHNICITY, however, is not a social construct. Ethnicity has to do with your biological ancestry, not your appearance. While you can probably count the number of races that exist in the world on your two hands, you could never count all the ethnicities. Because within biological groups of people there are subgroups and it goes on and on.
As for you assertion that RACE determines NATURE, that is FALSE because as I have demonstrated, race has nothing to do with nature. You might then, however, put forth the argument that if race doesn’t have anything to do with nature then ETHNICITY does. If you meant this in a direct sense, you would be wrong. There are no genotypes or phenotypes in anyone of any race or ethnicity that would solely determine their superiority in a physical activity as compared to another race or ethnicity. However, because different people of different ethnicities have different physical FEATURES, some of these physical features might be advantageous when it comes to performing certain physical tasks, which in turn might make many of the individuals within the ethnicity have some advantages over other ethnicities in certain physical activities in a general sense. But this does not mean that a race or ethnicity is naturally superior to any other in terms of a physical activity or task, it just means that by cause and effect some of their features might be advantageous when it comes to certain things. There is a difference. It’s a subtle one, but an EXTREMELY important one.
As for the idea of people of a certain race being smarter than another, there has always been a tremendous amount of disagreement in the psychological community over how exactly intelligence should be properly measured. I am a firm believer in the idea that it is almost impossible to measure someone’s overall intelligence. I think most people have things they are mentally proficient in and mentally deficient in. I believe there are very few people that are across the board smart or across the board stupid.
And your definition of systematic/systemic racism is completely wrong. Systemic racism, or institutional racism, is racism on the macro scale where there is a social system in place that the majority race or one particular race benefits from more than all the others in that society. The USA has a lot of institutional racism and we are extremely unaware and ignorant of it.
Also, there is something you should know about descendants of slaves in this country. Back in the day, slaveowners used to–and I’m going to use this word to illustrate the mindset that slavemasters had toward their slaves–breed their slaves. They would breed their slaves in a way to make the strongest most athletic most physically gifted slaves because they were the best for working the fields. So that is perhaps why there are so many black athletes dominating our sports today, because horrible disgusting people decided to genetically engineer and breed people like lab rats and animals. It is not because they are just naturally more brutish or more built for physical activity by the nature of their race.
Anyway, I am choosing only to address the issues I have with what you have said about race. There are tons of other issues I have with this post, but I’m choosing to just focus on the main topic because to go into the rest of them would take too long.
I really hope you learned something.
LikeLike
Which history book are you referring to? Do you have any suggestions or are you going to just say “THE history books”? That’s like saying “Well, you know, THEY say race is a social construct.” Oh really! “They” – those good ole’ experts. You’re assuming the categorization of particular races weren’t based upon something real. Of course, you’re clearly a Liberal and, for reasons elucidated above, would never agree that race is something real (which is a large part of my post); that it designates specific features. But this is a contested issue and, whether you are aware of it or not, which you are clearly not, there is much disagreement as to whether race is a “social construct” – whatever that actually is. Here’s a very practical example of what I mean. When the coroner in a crime lab investigates some skeletal remains, they can tell us what race the person is by their skeletal structure alone. Further, from blood, hair, and semen race can also be determined. All this suggests quite the contrary, really. So much for it being a cold hard fact! I’m not going to say it is a FACT that race is some real feature of the human person, although I obviously believe this, but there is room for error here since it is a contested issue right now. You would do well to recognize that and perhaps educate yourself a bit. You sound awfully arrogant.
Where did you demonstrate race has nothing to do with nature? From the website Diffen: “The term race refers to the concept of dividing people into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of physical characteristics (which usually result from genetic ancestry). An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, on the basis of a real or a presumed common genealogy or ancestry.” Actually, you’re assertions are bit “backwards”. If anything, ethnicity is more of a “social construct” than race. From the website Livescience: “Race is associated with biology, whereas ethnicity is associated with culture. In biology, races are genetically distinct populations within the same species; they typically have relatively minor morphological and genetic differences. Though all humans belong to the same species (Homo sapiens), and even to the same sub-species (Homo sapiens sapiens), there are small genetic variations across the globe that engender diverse physical appearances, such as variations in skin color.” Unless those difference, grounded in your genetic material, is a “social construct”, I’d say you really need to educate yourself and stop telling others to do what you need yourself. Once again, I am not saying race is certainly a real feature, although I obviously believe this, so you can search Google to you hearts content and find material to counter act these claims made at this particular websites. The result will only be that this is a contested matter and so not a FACT as you so dogmatically believe it to be.
You say: “Also, there is something you should know about descendants of slaves in this country. Back in the day, slaveowners used to–and I’m going to use this word to illustrate the mindset that slavemasters had toward their slaves–breed their slaves. They would breed their slaves in a way to make the strongest most athletic most physically gifted slaves because they were the best for working the fields. So that is perhaps why there are so many black athletes dominating our sports today, because horrible disgusting people decided to genetically engineer and breed people like lab rats and animals. It is not because they are just naturally more brutish or more built for physical activity by the nature of their race.”
Do you not see the fault here? After your initial diatribe, you’re really going to suggest that the athleticism of blacks is embedded into what they are as black people? Forget about the horrible crimes committed against them – that’s another topic – but granting and assuming for arguments sake that it did happen, this “engineering” is not a “social construction”. It’s real, my friend. It’s something real within them. Do you not see this?
Fine, you have qualms with my blog post. That’s obvious. If these criticisms are any indication of your best, then I would suggest not taking issue with any of the other numerous parts of this post you disagree with.
I was up for respectful interchange, but like your friend Grace you decided to take the dogmatic route and insinuate your moral and epistemological superiority. You have only shown – not how smart you are – but how much education you lack thus far in your life.
LikeLike
When I was referring to history I was referring to what I was taught in my Race Relations course at college which was taught by Chad Dion Lassiter, a man who is sometimes brought on TV shows or online webchats with people like Dr. Marc Lamont Hill as a race relations expert to refer to. So take that issue up with him. And engineering does not mean that there is something inherent in the race itself naturally because engineering and breeding is not a natural process. And even with this there is not a significant enough difference to automatically assume that someone who is descended from slaves is going to be more physically gifted than someone who isn’t. It is not embedded into race or nature if it is impacted by man’s influence. I never said that black people are more athletic by nature. I never made a blanket statement of the sort. And perhaps the way I worded it made it sound like I did. Obviously this did not impact every single descendant of slaves in this country or necessarily even most. If you haven’t taken a race relations course, I strongly encourage you to do so. Yes people of certain races often have similar physical characteristics. That’s how they were grouped in the beginning. But again humans determined who was similar and who was different. As far as ethnicity having to do with culture, you are partially right. Ethnicity has to do with culture in the sense that it is related to what historical or prehistoric tribe or ethnic group people come from or are descended from. Each ethnic group has their own distinct culture because they are their own distinct group. That is just the nature of culture. When I say someone is white, I am referring to their race. When I say someone is Slavic, I am referring to their ethnicity. Slavs have different features from other white ethnic groups. That’s not to say that they are the only ones with differences. Every white ethnic group is different. Just France alone contains white ethnic groups such as the French (or the descendants of the Franks), Normans, Corsicans, Occitans, Alsatians, Basques (also in Spain), Bretons, and Catalans (also in Spain), as well as others. Another example of ethnicity being biological: if you look at an English person, and you look at a person from southern Italy or Sicily, they have very different features. Yet they are both considered the same race. So obviously these features are not caused by their race or their biology, but by their ETHNIC ANCESTRAL BACKGROUND. That is unless we adopt a whole new system of understanding of how race is defined in our modern world and our country.
LikeLike