Matter of fact, it “lacks any logic and factual context”.
Who says? A judge in Germany! Bear in mind, Germans are very meticulous and opinionated. They do not rush to conclusions, all is based on reasoning. Hegel, Kant, and the like.
Let’s first have a look at the Pdf ‘Denying Racism: Elite Discourse and Racism‘ – Teun A. van Dijk
The Forms and Functions of Racism Denials
The many forms denials of racism may take are part of a well-known overall discourse and interaction strategy, viz. that of positive self-presentation or keeping face (Brown and Levinson 1987; Goffman 1967; Tedeschi 1981). Given general social norms that prohibit explicit dis- crimination and outgroup derogation, white group members usually do not want to be seen as racists . When they want to say something negative about minorities, they will tend to use denials, disclaimers or other forms that are intended to avoid a negative impression with their listeners or their readers. That is denials have the function of blocking negative inferences of the recipients about the attitudes of the speaker or writer. Such denials may not only be personal, but especially in elite dis- course, they may also pertain to our group in general: We British (Dutch, French) are not racist … That is in talk about minorities, white people often speak as dominant group members.
Let’s fact-check. So without further ado, here is an excerpt from the court ruling of Munich judge Walter from Oct. 2021:
This translates to:
“The “Tibetan” daughter and the associated accusations of racism against Judge Ehegartner, are mere eyewash, since the defendant’s daughter is a German citizen. The statement made is therefore devoid of any logic and factual context, but rather brings the animosity of the defendant to the fore.”
Now by applying elite discourse we put that in context with black Americans and, bingo, no racism. Can’t be. Because …
“The black Americans and accompanying accusations of racism against the U.S. turn out to be mere window dressing, since black Americans are American citizens. The statement made thereafter lacks any logic and factual context, but rather brings the animosity of black Americans to the fore.”
As van Dijk’s paper concludes:
Racism, defined as a system of racial and ethnic inequality, can survive only when it is daily reproduced through multiple acts of exclusion, inferiorisation or marginalisation. Such acts need to be sustained by an ideological system and by a set of attitudes that legitimate difference and dominance. Discourse is the principal means for the construction and reproduction of this socio-cognitive framework. At the same time, there are norms and values of tolerance and democratic humanitarian- ism, which may be felt to be inconsistent with biased attitudes and negative text and talk about minorities. To manage such contradictions, white speakers engage in strategies of positive self-presentation in order to be able credibly to present the others in a negative light. Dis- claimers, mitigations, euphemisms, transfers, and many other forms of racism denial are the routine moves in social face-keeping, so that ingroup members are able to come to terms with their own prejudices. At the same time, these denials of racism have important social and political functions, e.g. in the management of ethnic affairs and the de-legitimation of resistance. We have seen that, especially in elite discourse, for instance in the media and in the legislature, the official versions of own-group tolerance, and the rejection of racism as an implied or explicit accusation, are crucial for the self-image of the elite as being tolerant, understanding leaders. However, we have also seen how these strategies of denial at the same time confirm their special role in the formulation and the reproduction of racism.
. . . . . .
Self-love for ever creeps out, like a snake, to sting anything which happens to stumble upon it.