Ecclesial Anti-Racist Witness: A Critique and Affirmation Part I

Religious Scholarship Series.

A recent article [1] by Dwight N. Hopkins, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, came out in the latest issue of the Anglican Theology Review. And since it involves anti-racism as a subject, a subject which I study very closely and hold dear to my heart, and the journal of the Anglican Church, which I am apart of, I figured I would discuss and critique Dr. Hopkins views in my blog.

Hopkins opens up his article with an important point on the church and race:

Though the contemporary civil rights movement was a heroic effort, led primarily by black churches, 11 o’clock on Sunday morning is still the most segregated hour of the week. How is this possible, given that Christians of all colors claim to be followers of Jesus who walked this earth? To understand this reahty of the persistence and pervasiveness of racism, especially in tlie majority of today’s churches, and to delve into how theology and ethics help motivate anti-racism work in and through the church…

When it comes to race the Anglican and Episcopal churches are apart of that group of churches that are segreagated on Sundays, with most of those celebrating mass in the Anglican church being affluent (most of the time) and white (almost all of the time); however, worldwide, the Anglican church has more Blacks than whites.

So far so good, however one of the things I take umbrage (a slight annoyance to be exact) too is Hopkins simplistic definition of race and racism, especially within the American context. He opens up with a definition of race:

The African American philosopher Charles W. MiUs points out the constructed nature of race in the following definition. Mills lays out seven criteria he uses for defining race in contemporary US society.
And these elements usually overlap. He cites (1) bodily appearance (a function of biology and sociology); (2) ancestry (a function of biology and sociology); (3) self-awareness of ancestry (a function of biology and socialization); (4) public awareness of ancestry (a function of biology and socialization); (5) culture (based only on socialization); (6) experience (a function only of socialization); and (7) subjective identification (a combination of biology and socialization).’ These criteria indicated by Mills substantiate my definition of race in the United States context.

…

And so, in my definition, race results from combining both biological and sociological traits.

Also, his definition of racism is also quite lacking (and dangerous in the context of U.S. white privilege and supremacy):

Prejudice exists when one race (defined biologically and/or sociologically) feels that it is superior to another race simply because of perceived racial difference. Collectively, a group can share prejudice
when it has a preference for its own kind. Individually, a person of one race can attack a person of a different race because one individual feels superior.

Racism is the ability and the power of one race to implement negative prejudice against another race. It reveals itself when people in power use their power against blacks and other people of color, because those with power do not want African American lifestyles, cultural difference, and potential power-holders to have access to resources that God has given all people for communal ownership,
distribution, and use. Racism is prejudice plus power to implement.

However, his view of white supremacy is pretty much spot on:

White supremacy is the most concentrated form of racism in the United States. It is the systematic strategy that institutionalizes power in the hands of white Americans as a group. White supremacy can be conscious and unconscious; it can be verbally overt and silently supportive. Conservatives, radicals, and liberals are born into a system and structure of white supremacy.

First, I’ll (briefly) go over my differences with his views on race. He makes some interesting points in points three through seven; however the points in one and two are quite weak: especially when, in most academic and sociological circles, recognize race actually doesn’t exist. There is no biological markings for race; however, there are biological markings based on ones ancestry and origins and the like, but there are no markings for race on a biological level. So using biology as some sort of explanation for race is a faulty starting off point.

It has been recognize that race, essentially, was hammered out by the role of the court system within the United States, especially during the late 19th and early 20th centuries when “social Darwinism” was at its peak and “racial science” was in its heyday. Race was essentially a tool for giving out citizenship within the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: to be classified as white, within the court system, was to gain the privilege of citizenship. And skin and ancestory had little to do with it: in Alabama one was Black if one had one drop of “Black blood” in their body, even if they were the lightest white person in town; however, in Virginia one had to be 1/8 Black to be considered Black while in Florida one was Black if one was 1/16 Black, so therefore a “white” (by today’s standards) person in Virginia would become “Black” in Florida. During the mid-20th century the role of law and race changed. By this time race was already hammered out as anyone with light skin color and with ancestry from Europe as being classified as white (even Jews, though not fully at that point); with whiteness one got the privilege of home ownership and being able to move to the suburbs. So while earlier whiteness got one citizenship, now one got home ownership and government subsidies and wealth accumulation.

As for prejudice and racism Hopkins is also mistaken in linking “prejudice” with “racism” by stating”

Racism is the ability and the power of one race to implement negative prejudice against another race.

…when one race (defined biologically and/or sociologically) feels that it is superior to another race simply because of perceived racial difference.

With the term racism, there is no power structure being implied in its use. With the term white supremacy there is a power structure being implied in its use…The power structure in our society has been built up over time on white privilege and white supremacy and the people that have been exploited to make this country “great” were people of color. This structure is still in place and people of color are still in worse off situations than whites are (see “Living on the Other Side of the Color Line“) and whites continue to benefit from a society that views white as the “norm” (white heroes in history books, whites in TV shows, whites in congress, whites as CEOs, etc.) and continue to benefit from past racist policies and from current racist and contemporary racist thought (see “Black Dolls/White Dolls,” “Anti-Gang Injunctions,” “Boxer Recalls Award,” among other posts) as well as intentional or unintentional racist policies from the government that harm people of color but tend to not harm the white population. A person of color can be a “racist,” of course, but a person of color (due to the cited references above) cannot act on her or his racist views and in no way can harm whites at a mass level.

1. Hopkins, Dwight N. “Theological Basis of Ecclesial Anti-Racist Witness.” Anglican Theological Review 90, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 7-21.

Image From:
Piter’s Home Page