Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The hot new definition of racism has nothing to do with hatred of people based on their skin color. Racism is being redefined as “support for policies that increase racial inequality.” Not being racist isn’t good enough, now we have to be “anti-racist.”
The novel coronavirus apparently disproportionately affects African Americans. It also spreads when people gather in large groups, especially if they are close together. Using the new definition of racism, that would mean support for any policy that increases the spread of the virus is a racist belief, which, we are told, is not a moral judgment, but simply a descriptor.
[But don’t the lockdowns also disproportionately affect African Americans? Yes. both locking down and not locking down are racist.]
Having established that support of policies that increase the viral spread in general is a racist attitude, we can certainly say that it would be especially racist to support or encourage groups that are disproportionately made up of African Americans to gather. This is true regardless of the intentions involved; remember, intentions matter no longer.
[Wait, you may object, Doesn’t this deny the agency of African Americans in a pretty traditionally racist way? Yes.]
I think that’s enough of a framework to argue for the idea contained in the title of this post. One could go a step further and argue that not bringing out the National Guard to break up the large gatherings of protesters is a racist policy, because it increases the exposure of African Americans to a deadly virus. Using the new definition of racism, this is probably true.Published in