Racism Knows No Colour

An Idea, Not Just a System

For years, I’ve heard academics and activists from the left argue that black people cannot be racist because they lack "systemic power." It's a catchy and seemingly progressive idea, but one that misses a fundamental point. Yes, racism has historically thrived within systems of power, but defining racism solely in terms of structural advantage oversimplifies the issue and ignores its more dangerous origins: a belief in racial superiority.

At its heart, racism isn't about who controls institutions or shapes policies. Racism begins with a belief - an unscientific, irrational belief - that one race is inherently superior to others. This belief, once ingrained, can justify discrimination, violence, and even genocide. Before we ever had laws or social systems enforcing racial hierarchies, racism existed as an idea. And it’s that idea, not just institutional power, that we must challenge.

This is where I disagree with the notion that only those with systemic power can be racist. I've witnessed firsthand how anyone, regardless of their place in the power structure, can hold and act on the belief that one group is superior to another. Racism is not just a product of policies or laws; it’s also a deeply personal, internalized belief that shapes attitudes, behaviors, and even violence.

Take, for example, Nota Baloyi’s recent comments calling white people "subhuman" and "Neanderthal." His words are rooted in the same racist ideology we see across history, an ideology that sees one race as less than human. The fact that Baloyi doesn’t control government institutions or shape national policy doesn’t make his views any less dangerous. Racism isn’t just institutional; it’s personal, too. When we fail to acknowledge that, we are blind to the root of the problem.

The Dangers of Selective Justice in Fighting Racism

History offers plenty of proof that racism doesn’t need to be institutionalized to have deadly consequences. Just look at the Rwandan genocide, where ordinary citizens, not just government officials, took part in the mass murder of the Tutsi population. Racist propaganda didn’t need a legal framework, it simply needed the widespread belief that one group was superior to another. And that’s exactly what we’re dealing with when we argue that only those in power can be racist. We’re ignoring the fact that racism is first and foremost an idea, a deeply ingrained belief that can spread like wildfire if left unchecked.

But here’s where the argument gets more complicated. Some of the same left-wing academics who deny that black people can be racist are also silent about the ways in which the system in South Africa has shifted post-apartheid. Laws like Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) are, in essence, institutionalized racial preference. By their own definition, this is systemic racism. Yet, many of these same voices remain silent, or worse, defend these policies. How can we call for an end to systemic racism while simultaneously defending policies that give preferential treatment based on race?

This selective application of the term "racism" weakens the fight against racial prejudice. Racism, in all its forms, should be called out, regardless of who perpetuates it. If we only acknowledge racism when it is committed by certain groups, we water down the meaning of the term. If we are truly committed to eradicating racism, we must hold everyone - whether black, white, or any other race - accountable for the harm they cause. Anything less is not justice; it’s ideological bias.

The Inconsistency of Defining Racism

If we cannot acknowledge that all groups are capable of racism, we will never have a meaningful conversation about how to stop it. We’ll continue to argue in circles, dividing people into "good" and "bad" groups based on race, rather than looking at the shared humanity that connects us all. If we cannot agree on this fundamental truth, we’re stuck - unable to move forward, let alone build a just society.

This is the danger we face if we allow this flawed view to dominate the discourse. We risk creating a society where one group can express racist views with impunity, while another is punished for the same offense. We risk a system that tells us some racism is acceptable, depending on the racial identity of the person committing it. A society that allows this inconsistency is a society built on double standards, one that will be condemned by history.

The choice is clear. We can adopt a rational, consistent stance on racism, one that acknowledges its personal and systemic forms, and holds everyone to the same standards. Or we can continue down this dangerous path of selective justice, where racism is only recognized when it comes from the "wrong" group. I know where I stand. I choose fairness. I choose consistency. And most importantly, I choose a society that strives to eradicate racism in all its forms, regardless of who the perpetrator is.

By doing so, we take a step towards a more just and unified world - a world where racism, in all its guises, is rejected and fought against by everyone, for the good of all.