大多数人都同意种族主义在道德上是错误的，因此我们都应该努力摆脱种族主义。我完全同意。但这篇文章不是关于消除种族主义的;这是关于摆脱“种族主义”的。有了引号就完全不一样了。哲学家们把一个词用引号括起来，通常是为了表明他们谈论的是这个词，而不是这个词所指代的事物。So, when I say that this essay is about getting rid of “racism,” I mean that it’s about getting rid of theword“racism” rather than getting rid of thethingracism.

为什么会有人想要去掉“种族主义”这个词呢?听起来是个很好的词。事实上，这似乎是一个有道德价值的词。如果种族主义在道德上是一件坏事，那么有语言来处理它——跟踪它、分析它、谴责它、呼吁它——肯定是一件好事，对吗?嗯,当然。当然是。Racism is bad, and it’s good to have the language to address bad things,but I can accept this and still believe that there’s a moral problem with using terms like “racism.”

To explain why I think this, I want to start with a general principle that works well enough in most cases. It’s the principle that if something is morally wrong, then it’s morally problematic to talk about that thing in ways that obscure its moral wrongness. This might happen in all sorts of ways, such as outright lying, speaking evasively, playing it down, indulging in euphemisms, and so on. These ways of speaking are not necessarily inaccurate. For example, it’s true that the nuclear obliteration of Hiroshima was an explosion, but in most contexts it would be morally questionable to describe the destruction of Hiroshima as just due to an explosion. If a child were to ask you about what it was that caused the destruction of Hiroshima, and you were to reply, “an explosion” you would be misleading the child. Your language would be factually accurate but (as I like to call it) morally opaque, because it blunts the fine edge of moral awareness and critique.

When the Nazis imprisoned people in Dachau, where they were abused and sometimes murdered, they described this is “protective custody.” This was obviously a label that was intended to mislead. But morally opaque language doesn’t have do be deliberately misleading. Morally opaque speech is wrong, whether performed intentionally or unintentionally.

To see this, let’s consider another example: the term “Jim Crow.” In my experience, very many Americans (in fact, I would guess most Americans) don’t really have a clear understanding what this expression refers to. They have a vague idea that it had something to do with racial segregation, Black people being forced to ride at the back of the bus, voter suppression, and so on, but they have not comprehension of the brutality that Black Americans were routinely subjected to during the Jim Crow era. So when a lot of people talk about Jim Crow, there is a sense in which they simply don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s not that they’ve intentionally distanced themselves from the hideous truth, and that their ignorance is motivated by bad intentions. Rather, the semantic impoverishment of “Jim Crow” should be understood ideologically. It’s a symptom of White America’s collective failure to confront the horrors of its history rather than something that’s best explained by the motives of individuals.

这一点对哲学的实践具有重要意义;特别是，但不完全是，公共哲学的实践。如果我们在与那些不了解美国种族历史的人交流时使用“吉姆·克劳”这样的术语，我们就有可能以一种模糊其真正道德重要性的方式谈论一个具有道德意义的主题，从而在不知不觉中从事一种道德上有问题的行为。还有更好的选择!与其使用像“吉姆·克劳”这样的名字，不如使用明确的描述，例如，通过提及那个时期，白人经常恐吓、虐待、折磨、压迫和谋杀黑人而不受惩罚?这比《吉姆·克劳》信息量大多了它切中了问题的核心，迫使一个可能会说吉姆·克劳并不是那么坏的人面对这样一个事实，即他们在暗示恐怖主义，虐待，酷刑和谋杀并不是那么坏。

The problem with “racism” is a bit like the problem with “Jim Crow,” because in both cases the interlocutors may be operating with quite different assumptions about what it is that’s being talked about. However, the term “racism” is unclear for a different reason than “Jim Crow” is. “Jim Crow” is unclear because most people don’t understand what it means, but “racism” is unclear because it means too many different things to too many different people.

Those of us who do work in the philosophy of race know that there are many competing conceptions of what racism is. According to one of them, racism is animosity, repulsion, or contempt directed towards others based on their racial classification. This notion of racism is prevalent amongst the general public. But how about someone who is not hostile to others on the basis of their race, but who believes that the members of a given race are intellectually, morally, or physically inferior? That’s another conception of racism. To flesh it out, consider American slave owners’ attitude towards their slaves. They didn’thatetheir slaves any more than they hated their livestock, but they certainly regarded them as inferior specimens of humanity (or even as subhumans). It would be strange to say that those people were not racists. Yet another way to cash out the notion of racism is to see it as a kind of systematic indifference to the wellbeing of racialized others. It’s not that one hates the members of a certain race, or necessarily that one thinks of them as racially inferior—it’s just that one doesn’t give a damn about them.

Other approaches to racism detach it from the realm of attitudes—of emotions and beliefs—and think of it as pertaining to actions. From this perspective, if you behave in ways that selectively disadvantages the members of a certain race, or acquiesce in such behavior, then you are a racist, no matter your motivations are.

还有一个重要的概念——结构性种族主义，用eduardo Bona-Silva的话来说，“没有种族主义者的种族主义也存在”。从这个观点来看，整个社会制度都可能是种族主义的，只要它们的结构方式是赋予某些种族群体以牺牲其他种族群体的权利，即使特权群体中没有人对弱势群体的成员持贬损态度，这种情况也会发生。例如，在精英商学院中，白人所占比例过高。当企业雇佣员工时，他们倾向于利用老员工的关系网——他们认识的人。因此，精英商学院以白人为主的毕业生倾向于雇佣以白人为主的人——但这不一定与个人对有色人种的贬损态度有关。

The fact that “racism” can mean any of these things, as well as others, is important. When we philosophers say of some politician or other that he is a racist or has endorsed racist policies, and defenders of that politician object that he’s not a racist, it’s easy to think that that the defender is consciously or unconsciously motivated by racism. Now, this might be true, but I think that the reality is often more complex. It is often the case that the accuser and the person defending the accused are operating with starkly different conceptions of what racism is.

所以，与其指责某人种族主义，为什么不去掉这个标签，试着尽可能准确地说出你心中的想法呢?如果你的意思是说这个人蔑视有色人种，那么看在上帝的份上，明确地说出你的意思!如果你认为这个人支持系统性地让有色人种处于不利地位的政策，那么就直接说出来，而不是指一些定义不清的“种族主义”概念。这样做可能不会解决争议，但至少会让争议的真正原因变得清楚。

Returning now to where I began, it should be clear that I endorse the view that racism is morally bad because all of the various things that “racism” is used to name are morally bad. And it should also be clear that I think it’s a good thing to have words for addressing racism. The reason that I’m uncomfortable with using “racism” is that it’s unclear what’s meant by it, and using it often obscures the moral significance of what is being talked about.

That’s why I want to get rid of “racism.” Having read this, I hope you do too.