In the West, our understanding of morality traditionally flows from the fountains of our Judeo-Christian inheritance, which generated both individualism and liberalism (in the sense of liberty/freedom for all). Under this worldview, a person is considered “innocent until proven guilty” and “good” because of their actions. This moral vision was expressed well by Martin Luther King Jr. when he said: “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Whether or not injustice remains within the hearts (and actions) of people/systems today, King’s vision has been encoded through law in almost all Western countries. This is undoubtedly one of the most outstanding achievements of Western Civilization. As explained in the last video you watched, this victory is sometimes referred to as the success of second-wave racism. This movement seemed to promote a colour-blindness that has recently gone out of fashion. 

Rather than celebrating what we have in common, third-wave racism activism tends to highlight difference and unconscious biases/systemic oppression. This is what Charles Taylor names in his book Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition as a shift away from a “politic of dignity” toward a “politic of recognition.” People no longer are satisfied with being seen through the lens of dignity as equal (they actually claim this is farcical anyway), rather they want to be recognized for their current and historical oppression and therefore honoured for what makes them different.

The movement of third-wave racism seeks to redefine racism away from explicit actions towards systemic and unconscious forms of racism. Sadly, instead of downplaying the colour of people’s skin and seeking to emphasize people’s character, I believe discussions that focus on “whiteness” as the problem will only revive tribalism and re-emphasize racial and group characteristics as primary factors in identity. Under this worldview,  my “whiteness” means my character is pre-judged and that I am likely racist regardless of whether anyone has ever observed racist behaviour in my actions. Additionally, to suggest that unless a person is actively working against their implicit biases and seeking to become an antiracist, is without exaggeration, to reconfigure what it means to be good (this form of awareness/activism is often referred to as becoming “woke”).

Additionally, the suggestion that a person’s oppression (their race, gender, etc.) automatically gives them moral authority (or not) is to redefine what virtue means. As Christians, we don’t believe people are “good” or virtuous because they are oppressed. Rather, all people are sinful regardless of their oppression, economic status, etc. 

Finally, it is essential to remind ourselves that fighting against racism is not the only (or even the most important) form of oppression in the world. Intersectionality is an important concept in this regard because it reminds us that oppression comes in many forms. If we want to know if a person is oppressed, it is more important to ask whether they have wealth or live in poverty, instead of inquiring firstly about skin colour. Although many may claim this is only an expression of white privilege, I believe it is important that we try to reclaim some of Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision: not pre-judging people based on the colour of their skin, but instead focusing on the content of our character. It is worth mentioning that Galatians 3:23, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” was an important verse for King (referenced at the end of his “I have a dream speech”). He was not fighting to make the salience of race more potent. Rather he preached a message of common humanity.f