Racism

In a recent interview, Irish actor Liam Neeson admitted to having left home with a stick with the deliberate intention of killing "a black man" after a very close person was raped about forty years ago. The confession of guilt – yes, it is a confession of guilt – was made during an interview with the British newspaper "The Independent" while promoting his latest film. Neeson stated that this close person dealt with the rape "in an extraordinary way" (!), and that he did not know the attacker. The actor then asked him what his race was. "Black," was the answer.

For a week, Neeson went out into the streets with a stick slung over his shoulder, anxiously waiting for a black individual, a "damned black man" in his own words, to approach and provoke him outside a bar, hoping to avenge his friend's suffering. Fortunately, during that period, the actor was unable to unleash his racially motivated homicidal instincts. Yes, because, although he could have selected a hundred other characteristics of the aggressor, as he himself admits – "Lithuanian," "British," "Scottish," "Irish," all of which, in my view, are also quite difficult to grasp (how to identify a Scotsman without a kilt and without hearing him speak with a possible accent?) – the question that would help in identifying the aggressor was specifically about the color of his skin.

Individuals are not born racist; they learn to discriminate against others based on skin color or any other attributes that differ from what they consider "normal." Liam Neeson says he's not racist, and I have no reason to doubt him because the racist act—which, in reality, didn't materialize, remaining only in theory—occurred four decades ago. He regretted what he did and even sought help from a priest. I, personally, would seek the help of a psychoanalyst, but, oh well. The "brutal honesty" attack, on the other hand, also reveals and unveils the hypocrisy of politically correct discourse because "we all pretend to be (politically correct), but, scratching the surface, you discover that this racism and fanaticism are there."

And this racism also exists "in reverse," that is, on the part of those who historically suffer, literally, symbolic and physical violence for having been born with darker skin pigmentation than the "sour-faced" whites. I have heard, for example, in a debate about historical reparations for the Black population, that "you," referring, obviously, to "whites," have a debt to pay. Unless the wickedness of the plantation owner is inherited genetically, such a racist line of thought is no different from that which Liam Neeson used in defending his friend's honor. In the end, an individual's skin color doesn't say much—if anything at all—about their character, their cultural identity(ies), much less their homicidal tendencies, as the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso and his tropical disciples like Nina Rodrigues, author of "Human Races and Criminal Responsibility in Brazil," believed.

The solution inevitably involves education, a pedagogy of liberation—liberation from ethnocentrism, from the idea that “we” are better or morally superior to “others,” which doesn't mean we need to like or believe in what “others” like or believe. Living with difference is necessary in a society that aspires to be democratic and culturally complex, where the very notion of “us” is fragmented because we play multiple social roles. Decentralizing the idea of ​​“right” and “wrong,” practicing the concept of cultural relativism based fundamentally on the principles of human rights, is healthy. It is the ideology of inclusion.

Can you imagine how many Brazilian Liam Neesons are out there, empowered by the racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and xenophobic discourse that spreads through society like the toxic mud of Brumadinho?