Redefining Racism

Kafkatrappists Attempt to Alter the Meaning of Commonly-Accepted Terms

Some time ago, I read White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo. And I made a point of purchasing the book secondhand, so as to avoid putting money in DiAngelo’s pocket. Despite the numerous accolades pronouncing the book as gospel from smug, nodding deceivers, the book is a monumental disappointment to those of us with critical thinking skills.

It is, perhaps, the most unsubtle and unapologetic kafkatrap I’ve ever seen. For those unaware, the term kafkatrap was coined by software developer and blogger Eric S. Raymond. (For those looking for a comprehensive and accurate definition, avoid Wiktionary, a blog run by morons with delusions of adequacy.)

The term was inspired by Franz Kafka’s novel Der Process (The Trial), in which the hapless hero is accused of crimes that are never specified, to himself or to the reader. The term kafkatrap (which, out of deference to the gentleman who coined the term, is neither capitalized nor hyphenated) means an accusation in which denial is taken as confirmation of guilt. Or, as Raymond puts it:

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…}.”

For instance:

Accuser: You just don’t agree with my proposal because you’re a misogynist.

Accused: I am not a misogynist!

Accuser: Woah! I can see you’re really worked up about that. Exactly how a misogynist would react.

The very denial from the accused is taken as confirmation of guilt. This leaves the accused with no way to defend himself; he has no alternative but to accept his guilt. It goes beyond “guilty until proven innocent.” It might be more accurately described as “guilty and cannot be proven innocent and can never be made innocent.” Raymond quite appropriately described the kafkatrap as “a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged.”

That is a description of the model A variant. There are two others, which will become relevant, and I will include Raymond’s description.

A common variant, which I’ll call the Model C, is to assert something like this: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…}, you are guilty because you have benefited from the {sinful, racist, sexist, homophobic, oppressive,…} behavior of others in the system.” The aim of the Model C is to induce the subject to self-condemnation not on the basis of anything the individual subject has actually done, but on the basis of choices by others which the subject typically had no power to affect.

And finally, the last variant, the model P.

A close variant of the model C is the model P: ‘Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…}, you are guilty because you have a privileged position in the {sinful, racist, sexist, homophobic, oppressive,…} system.’ For the model P to work, the subject must be prevented from noticing that the demand to self-condemn is not based on the subject’s own actions or choices or feelings, but rather on an in-group identification ascribed by the operator of the kafkatrap.”

So, racism is no longer an attitude, but a kind of “guilt by association.” Therefore, not only are whites the only ones who can be racist, but all whites are.

Sadly, this type of argumentation is surprisingly common, and not just when designating racists.

Unfortunately for the careless dissemblers, it just doesn’t work that way.

Even if we were to assume that all power belongs to whites (a self-evident absurdity), racism is still an attitude, not a race.

It would be like saying that someone from a communist country is a communist, regardless of his personal persuasions. He might favor capitalism or democracy, but he can only be a communist, because he was born and raised in a communist country. Furthermore, if he was raised to adulthood in a communist country, he thereby benefitted from communism; therefore, regardless of his political persuasions, even if he finds communism abhorrent, he can only be a communist.

Palpable nonsense. If I were living in a country that outlawed religion, I would still be a theist, because I believe in God. The government and society may not support my beliefs, but it is my beliefs, not the society or government, that determines whether I am a theist.

But somehow, the kafkatrappists believe they get to redefine the rules of grammar.

Webster’s Dictionary defines the suffix -ist as:

: one that adheres to or advocates a (specified) doctrine or system or code of behavior

socialist

royalist

hedonist

or that of a (specified) individual

Calvinist

Darwinist

So, it is a believer in the specified philosophy. Not as someone who lives under a particular society or government, regardless of personal inclinations, actions or beliefs.

In short, the belief defines the -ist. Not race, gender or any other category over which the individual has no control. With this in mind, the question arises, can nonwhites be racist?

Of course.

While I don’t subscribe to the notion that racism is about privilege and power, even assuming that were true, anyone can be racist. Since the belief defines the -ist, anyone who believes in institutions of power and privilege, whether societal or enacted into law, would be a racist. It doesn’t matter if the individual belongs to a historically disadvantaged race; if they believe that there needs to be institutions of power and privilege that benefit only members of a particular race, they are indeed racist, even by this false definition.

So, as much as the unartful dissemblers would like us to believe that only whites can be racist, even by their fake definition, the argument fails.