Which caused me pause. Never mind the premise of the 'walk' signal being a 'white man' and the walker needing his 'permission.' Can an unintentional act or condition be racist? Is that possible?
I believe and freely grant that unintentional acts or conditions may be harmful and may need to be addressed and/or corrected. Harmful, yes. Racist? Not so much.
The definition of racism, courtesy of Dictionary.com, is:
(1) a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
(2) a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
(3) hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Where is there room for defining unintentional acts or conditions as racist?
Racism *requires* belief, policy, or action because of hatred or intolerance based on the belief that one of another group is inferior. I see no evidence that that can possibly be anything but intentional. An action might be unconscious or unrecognized and that action might be harmful and need to be corrected--that's why humans need to communicate with each other--and what a blessing to all that we can. But if it is racist -- it is, by definition, intentional.
After further reflection, I have noted that the title of the subject article really says a lot: "The Unintentional Racism *Found* in Traffic Signals." Not "The Unintentional Racism *Placed* in Traffic Signals." I guess one finds what one is looking for.
No comments:
Post a Comment