There's this odd idea in the posts debigotizer has covered recently, where "one can be racist without being hateful" is a pervading theme.
Extensively, I suppose, "one can be ____ist without being hateful" too.
The thing is, this sort of writing misses the point. While we certainly care about the actors of racism, sexism, or elitism, we do not observe them as being "hateful" or "not hateful". Rather, we look at whether the effects of their oppression generate hateful attitudes toward those who are oppressed.
Historically, this has always been the case.
TheĀ spirit of separate-but-equal may have been to allow racism without hatred, but it allowed people to perpetuate double standards, which in turn allowed a sense of superiority in one race over the other. That in turn translated very quickly to hatred.
TheĀ spirit of the Han absorption of ethnicity in China was one that not only wasn't hateful, but was about inclusiveness. In practice, it eliminated a lot of the cultural diversity of China, banishing ethnic groups who wouldn't conform to the "Han lifestyle" to little corners of the country. It perpetuated the idea that Han was superior, and thus promoted and excused existing paradigms of racial hatred.
Many slave-owners may have been fair to their slaves. "I am a just man, therefore my racism is not malicious," could have been how they excused their own contribution to slavery. However, they still put a cap on their slaves' worth and development, and whether that cap is motivated by actual hatred or simple apathy regarding the status quo, it is unfair, unjust, and hateful.
I bemoan the failures of an impact-over-intent consequentialist ethical system when dealing with semantics, but it applies here. In spades.
