In a recent episode of Philosophy Talk, Ken, John, and their guest, Naomi Zack, consideredCornell West’s criticism of Obama问题的关键在于，奥巴马不敢承认美国是一个白人至上主义社会，而这是美国所有其他种族问题的根源。肯、约翰和娜奥米似乎都同意韦斯特的批评是错误的，他们引用了“形式”平等(或权利)和“物质”平等(或权利)之间的重要区别。这个想法似乎是，一个允许在投票、住房等方面基于种族的法律歧视的社会和一个不允许的社会之间有一个重要的区别，一个法律禁止基于种族的歧视的社会不是一个真正的白人至上主义社会。我认为康奈尔·韦斯特(Cornell West)、米歇尔·亚历山大(Michelle Alexander)和塔-尼希·科茨(Ta-Nehishi Coates)等人不会同意:一个从形式上(即从法律上)禁止种族歧视的社会仍然可能是一个白人至上主义社会。Moreover, they argue that the United Statesissuch a society (although Alexander seems to shy from the term “white supremacist,”Coates doesn’t). I think that anyone can understand why Obama (or any other politician) would not want to acknowledge that the United States is a “white supremacist” society. But I want to present two reasons to think that a society can properly be described as “white supremacist” even if its laws forbid racial discrimination.

第一个原因是历史性的:在一个早期安排明显是白人至上主义的社会中，我们应该警惕声称我们当前的社会安排不是白人至上主义，特别是当早期社会安排中存在的种族不平等继续存在于当前社会安排中。奴隶制显然是白人至上的表现;尽管存在着第13、14和15条修正案，但《吉姆·克劳法》显然也是白人至上主义的表现。我们可能会认为，自1964年《民权法案》(Civil Rights Act of 1964)以来，我们生活在一个后白人至上主义的社会。一个正式意义上是色盲的社会怎么可能是白人至上主义的社会?但是把投票权当作一个案例来研究。虽然第15修正案的目标是确保不分种族的投票权，但又花了100年时间和一场大规模的民权运动才“确保”了这些权利。也许，人头税、识字测试和祖父条款的取消消除了实现投票平等的最后一个障碍。但我建议，我们应该以一种健康的怀疑态度对待这样的主张，因为实现投票平等的尝试以前曾失败过，而“我们”后来才意识到这一失败。Moreover, there is reason to think that the racial caste system that originated with slavery and was maintained through Jim Crow is being continued under the aegis of the War on Drugs,as Michelle Alexander has forcefully argued.

The second reason is ahistorical: in the U.S. today there is widespread economic and educational inequality that breaks down along racial lines (with darker skinned individuals being on the short end of the stick). If you’re in doubt about this,take a look. (Just look at the graphs, if you want. A picture is worth a thousand words.) Unless one is willing to chalk those differences up to differences in the moral or psychological qualities of darker skinned peoples, then it seems the only other explanation of this inequality is past and/or ongoing discrimination along racial lines. Presumably enlightened individuals would reject the “moral and psychological qualities” route (since it is racist). But that implies that the existing inequalities are due to racial discrimination—specifically, discrimination in favor of people with lighter skin over people of darker skin. And how is that not white supremacy?

所以我认为，一个社会正式禁止种族歧视并不意味着它不能被恰当地描述为“白人至上主义”。但它应该这样描述吗?为什么不用更委婉的说法呢?虽然我认为，像奥巴马这样的政客使用“白人至上主义者”这样咄咄逼人的术语是不合适的，但我认为这样做是有价值的。简而言之，如果一个人不能承认问题，那么问题就不可能得到充分解决。我认为，这就是康奈尔·韦斯特批评的重点。如果你是一个美国白人，你的美国身份是你身份认同的核心部分，那么你将很难承认美国是一个白人至上的国家。It is psychologically easier for such an individual to ignore the inequalities or to explain them in some other way (a phenomenon widely confirmed byself-affirmation theoryandmotivated reasoning更普遍的)。但是，面对一个困难的事实时的实际困难或心理困难并不一定意味着我们不应该面对这个事实。尤其是如果我们的目标是解决问题而不是掩盖问题的话。