It’s hard to verify the truth of your statement, GeorgeTichy. I trust that @David1, and others, can see why.
That is, the 2nd part of it—“those who do [support the undeniable discrimination and segregation] have made a mess of our society”—is objectively true, and there are countless examples to prove this.
The first, and primary, example, perhaps, if one is just speaking about “America,” is that racism made the claims of the founding documents fraudulent; e.g., “all men are created equal,” etc.
It built a schism into the arguments which were rationally designed to propel the nation to greatness. It unbandaged a moral canker that has grown and metastasized over the centuries.
So, that part of your statement is true.
It’s the first part of your statement—“Not every white supports the undeniable discrimination and segregation”—that is unverifiable.
The key reason it is unverifiable is that it depends on the concession that not all white people are racist. However, no one has yet proven this.
One way to think about this fact is as follows:
How would you answer the question, "Am I polluting the environment?"
A: You would, at the very least, have to perform a forensic, or quantitative, review of your activities.
That is, you’d need to ask, and accurately answer, questions, such as:
• “Do I use detergents whose chemicals kill sea life?”
• “Are my traveling activities impacting the air in a negative way; for example, through the release of petrochemicals?”
• “Do the foods I consume make particularly heavy draws on the resources of the ecosphere?"
And so on.
Indeed, such a review could even be extended to one’s revealed or unrevealed attitudes. (Christians are familiar with this level of resolution; certainly, SDAs are.)
For example, “Does my outlook move others to think that polluting the environment is not a big deal?”
Or, “Do I help, enable, or even influence others who do, or even may, pollute the environment, in ways that assist them doing so?”
Few are equipped, or even inclined, to do this level of review, even in they consider themselves “concerned about the planet and its future.”
In part, I suspect, this is why human beings are continually shocked and surprised by new discoveries that reveal the level of pollution in the environment, including that within their own anatomies; e.g., the problem of the chemical body burden.
However, it is only with a forensic review of this sort that any individual could objectively answer the question, "Am I polluting the environment?"
In my opinion, however, it is only with a forensic review of this sort—of one’s activities, of one’s impacts in the social realm, and one’s effects on the larger world—that one could objectively answer the question, as a white person, "Am I a racist?"
Now, the environmentalist has a distinct advantage, in the above scenario: For the most part, she is attempting to find the traces left by molecules. He is trying to determine where the matter that came from his exhaust pipe went. Also, he can be sure that, whatever that matter did, it did the same as other matter under similar circumstances.
As for the suspected racist, their task is nowhere as simple.
They’d be trying to track attitudes, sentiments, viewpoints, etc., and their effects on the attitudes, sentiments, viewpoints, etc. of other people, not just now, but across centuries, and even across landforms.
They’d be trying to derive the influences of benefits and detriments, on the material reality and well-being for those who derive those benefits and detriments, and how these rebound throughout, not just a culture, but the entire known universe.
Further, they’d be attempting to make statements about what the effects of their present actions, now, will have, not just now, but on human beings in the future, including ones who do not yet live.
How would one track all of this?
The impossibility of doing so is why I told @Kate that, when asked, “Are all white people racist?”, Black people can respond one of three ways:
a) Defensively (e.g., “Hell, YEAH!!”), because an overwhelming number of their interactions with white people have been hostile;
b) Sentimentally (e.g., “No,” or, “No, not all of them”), because they have a significant number of friendly, white acquaintances;
c) Objectively (e.g., “I don’t know”), which is my response; the only one I can truthfully give.
But, from reading your comments, GeorgeTichy, you seem to hold the view that white persons can self-analyze and self-declare whether they are racist, or not, via their own internal review. (I could be wrong, but this summary seems consistent with statements you’ve made over time.)
I think that this sounds, among other faults, convenient.
As the mental health professional you affirm you are, in your reply to @David1, you would never start with the self-diagnosis of a client, as a baseline for how you would treat their illness.
You would, instead, perform a forensic review.
As a non-white person, I think racism is too lethal an agent to be certified by those who may carry it.
That “not every white supports the undeniable discrimination and segregation” is not yet certain. If you say it is, what is your evidence?
What is certain is that racism is white supremacy.
Racism is global, unbounded, long-lasting, and strong. Those who counter it must be, as well.