The rise of judgmental "Labelist"

*Note: this post is a controversial and complex one, and is merely for the sake of discussion. No offense is intended to cause and should you feel offended or is unable to understand or is unable to agree, I hereby apologize beforehand*

Context: So I came across a post shared by one of my friends where the post states (a photo):

"Do Not Rent to African/Negro".

It clearly has sparked a lot of anger for everyone who sees it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly out of his mind.

On the face of it, it undisputably racist, and also IT IS IN FACT RACIST. I agree.

But I went on to make a statement in the comment section, saying: "This is because from the property investors' point of view, with the presence of black people in high rise property would cause a fall in the value of the property. So when a property investor is valuing property such as a condominium or flat, one of the factors he’ll look at is whether there’s the presence of black people or not". This statement basically triggers a number of people which further incited a few commenters in response to the statement I had made. (I was actually stating the fact, rather than making a point because the point is clear, anyhow, it is racist whether it is directly or indirectly) But, the issue is MORE than just being racist.

One of the examples that I've given is: "Should Jay Z or Obama offer to rent or purchase any of the units, I truly doubt the investors would be 'racist' and still opt not to sell or rent the properties to them". A true racist would never sell or rent the property to Jay Z and Obama unless they are motivated by some other things which cause them to be racist or make them seemed to be racist.

Then I came across another post by one of my lecturers from the Uni which shared a para or a phrase from the book: The Filipino Primitive: Accumulation and Resistance in the American Musem, stating:

"Baldwin then suggests that we need to listen to, and not merely watch, the looter. While the image of urban looters smashing storefront windows usually is understood and consumed as evidence of Black irrational violence, Baldwin transforms the spectacle of looting into a scene of instruction:

'Grabbing off the TV set? He doesn't really want the TV set. He's saying screw you. It's just judgment, by the way, on the value of the TV set. He doesn't want it. He wants to let you know he's there. The question I'm trying to raise is a very serious question. The mass media-television and all the major news agencies endlessly use the word "looter". On television you always see black hands reaching in, you know. And so the American public concludes that these savages are trying to steal everything from us. And no one has seriously tried to get where the trouble is. After all, you're accusing a captive population who has been robbed of everything of looting. I think it's obscene'.

Baldwin brilliantly revalues the worth of the television set being hauled away and thus rewrites the script of "these savages ... trying to steal everything." The television set no longer has monetary value. It no longer is a commodity. Rather, transformed by "black hands reaching in," the television set is converted from a commodity into a message: "He's saying screw you ... He wants to let you know he's there." In fact, the most important lesson is not the conversion of a commodity (the television set) into a message ("screw you"), but rather the insistence of the message: "He wants to let you know he's there." Here Baldwin implies that Black bodies historically have been consigned to the status of commodity and thus ontologically are deemed incapable of ever having a message. The insistence on presence constitutes the message: "He wants to let you know he's there." In other words, Black people always have been there and always have refused commodity status. We begin to understand that the image of the looter contains a story of seduction: We are seduced by the self-evident savagery of the sight of the Black looter ... Depending on what kind of "judgment" the viewer makes about the value of the television set, the "black hands reaching in" either confirm the stereotype of thieving savagery or send the viewer a message about what or truly is "obscene.""

Before you try to form your opinion on what I'm trying to bring across by sharing the above, I want to make clear that I am not trying to justify racism for the benefit of the investors because there's no justification that could be made in support of any form of racism. Racism is something that a clear-minded person should never endorse.

What I am trying to point out is where a lot of times, we pre-judge people too quickly without understanding the reason behind every act. We, as a society, love to place a label on people based on the actions taken without understanding the "WHY and WHAT" that can't be seen with our naked eyes.

Yes, indeed the property owner's act is undeniably obnoxious and the same goes to the "looters" who steal what's not theirs. But there is something more to just being racist and stealing. It is a message that something is wrong with the individual cells, the tissues, the organs, the system, and the body.

All of us are part of the body and have a duty in the system to ensure the organs work without having to point fingers at other cells and tissues when the body fails.

Cells fail for a reason, and a group of cells being a tissue will fail for a reason too. It is just too convenient for us to finger-point and label others when things are not working in our way or favour.

It's ironic because, when we called out others of being racist or savage, aren't we turning ourselves into another group of judgmental "labelist" who are just committing the same error or mistake of not being able to understand others?

And here's the problem with judgmental "labelist", they judge and label before they embark to understand, worse, some judge and label without taking the effort to understand.

Look, by calling out the people judgmental "labelist", am I not falling into the same trap? Aren't we all prima facie racists and savages?