I keep hearing it said that Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer against whom a murder charge has been filed, is a racist, and that this is what motivated him to abuse George Floyd. Let's think about this. A racist is someone who treats people differently according to their race. Typically, a racist treats members of his or her own race better than members of other races (or, conversely, treats members of other races worse than members of his or her own race).
How do we know that Chauvin treated Floyd differently (specifically, worse) because of Floyd's race? If you believe that Chauvin treated Floyd differently (worse) because of Floyd's race, then you must think that Chauvin wouldn't have acted as he did if Floyd were white. But what is your evidence for this counterfactual proposition? Did Chauvin have a pattern of treating black people worse than white people in relevantly similar situations? If so, then the burden is on you to supply that evidence. If not, then what is your evidence? Calling someone a racist is a serious charge; surely it should not be done without adequate evidence.
The mere fact that Chauvin is white and Floyd black doesn't establish racism. For all we know, Chauvin is brutal toward all races of people (an equal-opportunity brute, if you will). This is not to excuse brutality, but brutality is not the same as racism. The problem I am having is that people are leaping to the conclusion that Chauvin is a racist. We don't know this. We know that he's a brute, but again, one can be a brute without being a racist.
