The (re)definition of the word racist

[Tom Sawyer]

nm

 

[Nexus]

A key element in both is the idea that one race is superior to another. How do you then call AA racism?

I don't accept that as the key element. I don't really care too much what people think of me, I care how they act. Their thoughts and feelings are non of my business. Whether they discriminate against me is where my most concern is. It doesn't matter why they say they are discriminating against me assuming their good intentions is even the truth.

 

[bilby]

The reason is simple: There have been lots of incidents of racism from the supposed victims of racism. To continue to use it as a stick to beat whites you have to have a definition that doesn't include the racism from other races, hence the redefinition.

The definitions would be made up ones, which are not in the English language.

All definitions are made up ones.

The English language uses words to mean whatever the people using them understand them to mean.

If English speakers start using the word 'racist' in such a way as to exclude the possibility of minorities being racist, then that's what it will mean, when used by those people.

I think that this particular usage should be discouraged, as I consider it to be needless and confusing; but English is full of needless and confusing definitions, and my vote is but one of billions.

 

[Metaphor]

No one is saying that minority races are superior to the *hite race. It is not being done because of hatred or intolerance directed toward the *hite race. It is being done not to disadvantage members of the *hite race.

It results, as it must, in disadvantaging members of races that have aptitude and achievement higher than other races.

In medical schools admissions, this means Asians and Whites are disadvantaged and discriminated against. If you don't believe discriminating by race is racism, it hardly matters. Discriminating by race is wrong and I'm happy to call out AA for discriminating by race.

It is being done to try to undo a small part of the legacy of 400 years of the *hite race believing that they were "superior to another race or races" "and has the right to dominate others" resulting in "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Did Asians in America have equal culpability for the 'legacy of 400 years of the White race'?

What makes you think AA can undo the past? The dead victims of discrimination and racism cannot be made whole, and we are all the poorer for it. The alive victims of discrimination and racism have a legitimate grievance that they should pursue in a court of law.

But discriminating by race now because some White people discriminated by race in the past? That is blood libel.

 

[thebeave]

I so enjoy these semantic argument threads. I don't have much to add to this one, I am happy as always with the dictionary definition of the word "racism."

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

The first two in a google search for "racism definition." The first is unattributed, the second is from Dictionary.com.

A key element in both is the idea that one race is superior to another. How do you then call AA racism?

No one is saying that minority races are superior to the *hite race. It is not being done because of hatred or intolerance directed toward the *hite race. It is being done not to disadvantage members of the *hite race. It is being done to try to undo a small part of the legacy of 400 years of the *hite race believing that they were "superior to another race or races" "and has the right to dominate others" resulting in "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Or perhaps you guys have different definition of the word from the one in the dictionary?

If that's true, then why are we purposely and knowingly screwing over the Chinese now (e.g. college admissions) just like we did a century ago?

The first significant Chinese immigration to North America began with the California Gold Rush of 1848-1855 and continued with subsequent large labor projects, such as the building of the First Transcontinental Railroad. During the early stages of the gold rush, when surface gold was plentiful, the Chinese were tolerated, if not well received.[1] As gold became harder to find and competition increased, animosity toward the Chinese and other foreigners increased. After being forcibly driven from the mines, most Chinese settled in enclaves in cities, mainly San Francisco, and took up low end wage labor such as restaurant and laundry work.[citation needed] With the post-Civil War economy in decline by the 1870s, anti-Chinese animosity became politicized by labor leader Denis Kearney and his Workingman's Party[2] as well as by California Governor John Bigler, both of whom blamed Chinese "coolies" for depressed wage levels. Another significant anti-Chinese group organized in California during this same era was the Supreme Order of Caucasians, with some 60 chapters statewide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

 

[Bomb#20]

A key element in both is the idea that one race is superior to another. How do you then call AA racism?

Two minutes of conversation with the average AA advocate.

No one is saying that minority races are superior to the *hite race. It is not being done because of hatred or intolerance directed toward the *hite race. It is being done not to disadvantage members of the *hite race. It is being done to try to undo a small part of the legacy of 400 years of the *hite race believing that they were "superior to another race or races" "and has the right to dominate others" resulting in "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

That sounds like an assertion that for four hundred years the white race believed they were superior to another race and has a right to dominate other races. Is that what you intend to assert? If so, do you also assert that for four hundred years the black race believed they were superior to another race and has a right to dominate other races?

 

[crispy]

I so enjoy these semantic argument threads. I don't have much to add to this one, I am happy as always with the dictionary definition of the word "racism."

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

The first two in a google search for "racism definition." The first is unattributed, the second is from Dictionary.com.

A key element in both is the idea that one race is superior to another. How do you then call AA racism?

No one is saying that minority races are superior to the *hite race. It is not being done because of hatred or intolerance directed toward the *hite race. It is being done not to disadvantage members of the *hite race. It is being done to try to undo a small part of the legacy of 400 years of the *hite race believing that they were "superior to another race or races" "and has the right to dominate others" resulting in "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Or perhaps you guys have different definition of the word from the one in the dictionary?

I guess the OP article might fit in to definition 2, which is ironic, as its the only kind of racism that she acknowledges...

 

[whichphilosophy]

The definitions would be made up ones, which are not in the English language.

All definitions are made up ones.

The English language uses words to mean whatever the people using them understand them to mean.

If English speakers start using the word 'racist' in such a way as to exclude the possibility of minorities being racist, then that's what it will mean, when used by those people.

I think that this particular usage should be discouraged, as I consider it to be needless and confusing; but English is full of needless and confusing definitions, and my vote is but one of billions.

Definitions are constructed to provide conceptual understandings of actions and words. The definitions lose their confusions, if followed through by looking up definitions of the words in a dictionary and while also looking at the etymology. As our society became more advanced many definitions were added to fit our newer concepts.

The term racist infers a mental state from which such action emanates, whereas the size of the group is not a factor in defining racism.
By her own asinine and or dishonest perversion of the English language, we could equally say the South African white apartheid regime in the 1960s was not racist because the whites were a minority, but the same action in the US during this period was racist as the blacks were the minority.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't forget: Islam is a race too, hence bigotry against Muslims = Racism!

Like the people who insist on calling copyright infringement 'theft', the redefinition of 'racism' is a transparent ploy to skew the narrative.

Islam is shared amongst races.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Isn't racism simply an artificially induced hatred of persons of another race, frequently used to limit the hated race's human rights and perhaps facilitate its enslavement, exclude from society, or perhaps kill them? Having power has nothing to do with racism excepting that racists generally seek power to reify their beliefs.

Racism has always been around, even if it was to wipe out competing tribes Trotsky was the first to use this but I came across this article

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...e-ugly-fascinating-history-of-the-word-racism

The Ugly, Fascinating History Of The Word 'Racism'

 

[ronburgundy]

I so enjoy these semantic argument threads. I don't have much to add to this one, I am happy as always with the dictionary definition of the word "racism."

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

The first two in a google search for "racism definition." The first is unattributed, the second is from Dictionary.com.

A key element in both is the idea that one race is superior to another. How do you then call AA racism?

No one is saying that minority races are superior to the *hite race. It is not being done because of hatred or intolerance directed toward the *hite race. It is being done not to disadvantage members of the *hite race. It is being done to try to undo a small part of the legacy of 400 years of the *hite race believing that they were "superior to another race or races" "and has the right to dominate others" resulting in "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Or perhaps you guys have different definition of the word from the one in the dictionary?

Your second defintion does not require promotion of beliefs about a race. "a policy" that promotes "discrimination" is sufficient and AA policies explicitly do this. Also, This is the first definition given by Merriam Webster online:
"racism: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race."

Not hiring or admitting a person to college because they are white (which is what AA policies do) fits that definition perfectly. You are limiting racism to something that only applies to beliefs. It applies to other things as well, including actions and policies that prescribe various actions. The problem with the OP is that it goes to the other extreme of ignoring the belief and personal action applications of the term and defines it only in terms of policy actions and only those designed to benefit the racial group with the most overall social/political power. Racist policies are both racist and because they are policies carry power. Thus, some racism does entail use of power, and actually AA is among them. The problem is that most racism is not in the form of policy of gov power, but in the form of individually held beliefs and actions which are equally accessible to about equally practiced by members of all ethnic groups.

 

[Togo]

This is an easy issue to get confused over.

Racism means what people generally thinks it means, the only issue is context. In the sense of evaluation of individuals, then yes it doesn't matter if a person has power or not. The grumbly old guy on the street corner may have little or no power, but that doesn't make him any more or less of a bigot.

However, racism is not just a problem at the individual level. In terms of society, social change, institutions. social policy, etc. etc. you also deal with racism. The point here is to deal with situations which actually harm people. So what matters is not how someone feels, or what their beliefs or intentions are, if an institution can even be said to have those qualities, but rather how people are actually treated. The corollary to that is that an individual's own attitudes are kinda irrelevant, unless they have the power to act on them. So from a social science social policy perspective, a college admissions process that assumes everyone is white by default and leaves minorities to make up for any 'special' requirements, is more of a problem than a janitor who hates black people. Or to put it another way, an individual is only racist from a policy perspective if they have both racist attitudes and power.

Of course, if you're not interested in practical applications and just want to score political points off people, then it's very annoying and one-sided that only people with power get criticised for being bigots, just as it's annoying that only people with power get criticised for dishonesty, corruption or cronyism. It's very unfair, but people just don't care as much if you're corrupt, if you don't have any power or any of other people's money. Similarly, being a bigot is more of a deal if you're a political leader, state functionary, police officer with the power of life and death over other people, and so on. And even then, if you can keep your views out of the role you fill, no one is going to much care.

This isn't a new point, it's not suddenly something that's been sprung on people. It's been the accepted definition in social science and social policy for over two decades, both in the US and in Europe. Because social policy has to work on what people actually do, and can do.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If racism = racism+power then by substitution

racism = (racism + power) + power.

And further:

racism = (racism + power) + power + power.

And then by rearranging terms:

racism - power - power - power = racism.

Does equation show that power = 0? Or does it show that racism is infinite?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Of course, if you're not interested in practical applications and just want to score political points off people, then it's very annoying and one-sided that only people with power get criticised for being bigots, just as it's annoying that only people with power get criticised for dishonesty, corruption or cronyism. It's very unfair, but people just don't care as much if you're corrupt, if you don't have any power or any of other people's money. Similarly, being a bigot is more of a deal if you're a political leader, state functionary, police officer with the power of life and death over other people, and so on. And even then, if you can keep your views out of the role you fill, no one is going to much care.

This isn't a new point, it's not suddenly something that's been sprung on people. It's been the accepted definition in social science and social policy for over two decades, both in the US and in Europe. Because social policy has to work on what people actually do, and can do.

If we want to talk about racism plus power, why not just talk about racism plus power, rather than confusing what the word "racism" itself means? When we talk about money in politics, we don't redefine what "money" or "politics" is, even though we often talk about those in politics who have money.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This isn't a new point, it's not suddenly something that's been sprung on people. It's been the accepted definition in social science and social policy for over two decades, both in the US and in Europe. Because social policy has to work on what people actually do, and can do.

Even if that is the case, it would be a specific usage of a term which doesn't really apply outside of those specific areas. Saying that the generic term "racism" refers to "institutional racism" when applying it to certain areas of social policy therefore means that your Indian neighbour who rants about the evil white people isn't a racist makes about as much sense as claiming it's wrong to say that cranes are used when building office towers because there's no way a bird could carry that kind of weight.

It's a poor definition which introduces confusion. While scholars in a particular field may understand that their colleagues are referring to a particular subset of racism when using the generic term, that usage doesn't translate to a wider audience.

 

[Underseer]

Ya, that's a stupid definition of racism which isn't catching on outside of a small subset of people who do themselves more harm than good when they try to promote it.

It's fine for the meanings of word to change over time, but this particular redefinition seems to me to be a dud that isn't going anywhere.

No offense, but a black person calling a white person "honky" does not cause as much emotional damage because there is no ugly history of injustice invoked by the use of those words.

And this new-fangled definition of racism used by the FOX News crowd exists solely so that they can claim that white people are suffering just as much injustice as African-Americans despite everything we see on the news every day. The redefinition of racism that seeks to divorce racism from history exists solely so that privileged people can claim that they are also victims and therefore don't have to stop inflicting injustice on unprivileged groups.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, that's a stupid definition of racism which isn't catching on outside of a small subset of people who do themselves more harm than good when they try to promote it.

It's fine for the meanings of word to change over time, but this particular redefinition seems to me to be a dud that isn't going anywhere.

No offense, but a black person calling a white person "honky" does not cause as much emotional damage because there is no ugly history of injustice invoked by the use of those words.

And this new-fangled definition of racism used by the FOX News crowd exists solely so that they can claim that white people are suffering just as much injustice as African-Americans despite everything we see on the news every day. The redefinition of racism that seeks to divorce racism from history exists solely so that privileged people can claim that they are also victims and therefore don't have to stop inflicting injustice on unprivileged groups.

Who cares how much emotional damage it causes? That's unrelated to whether or not the term is being properly used.

 

[Metaphor]

Ya, that's a stupid definition of racism which isn't catching on outside of a small subset of people who do themselves more harm than good when they try to promote it.

It's fine for the meanings of word to change over time, but this particular redefinition seems to me to be a dud that isn't going anywhere.

No offense, but a black person calling a white person "honky" does not cause as much emotional damage because there is no ugly history of injustice invoked by the use of those words.

And this new-fangled definition of racism used by the FOX News crowd exists solely so that they can claim that white people are suffering just as much injustice as African-Americans despite everything we see on the news every day. The redefinition of racism that seeks to divorce racism from history exists solely so that privileged people can claim that they are also victims and therefore don't have to stop inflicting injustice on unprivileged groups.

You're confused: it's the people who think racism = racism + power that are redefining the word.

 

[dismal]

If racism = racism+power then by substitution

racism = (racism + power) + power.

And further:

racism = (racism + power) + power + power.

And then by rearranging terms:

racism - power - power - power = racism.

Does equation show that power = 0? Or does it show that racism is infinite?

Think of it this way:

racism = racism + power

racism = (racism+ power) + power

racism - power = racism + power

racism - power = racism + (racism - racism)

racism - power = racism

racism = racism - power.

 

[Togo]

This isn't a new point, it's not suddenly something that's been sprung on people. It's been the accepted definition in social science and social policy for over two decades, both in the US and in Europe. Because social policy has to work on what people actually do, and can do.

Even if that is the case, it would be a specific usage of a term which doesn't really apply outside of those specific areas. Saying that the generic term "racism" refers to "institutional racism"

No, you're still confused. Institutional racism is different again - it's about an institution run in a way that systematically disadvantages people of particular races.

The point is that racism is treating people poorly or unfairly on the basis of race. It has always meant that. If you're talking about individuals talking to each other in a social setting, then a racist is someone who, in a conversation, treats people of particular races unfairly. In that case expressed attitudes are all that is important. Someone who doesn't much like black people but doesn't say so is generally regarded as less racist than someone who claims to be fine with people of all races but continually makes jokes about killing people because they are black.

If you If you're talking about society at large, what attitudes aren't particularly important, unless they're coupled with power, because again the point is how people actually get treated. In this context expressed attitudes are even less important, unless they are coupled with the power to direct or influence others. The policeman who hates the fact that his town is being taken over by 'the coloureds' but treats them equally in practice is not a problem, while the policeman who likes people of all races, but stops, searches and arrests anyone who doesn't act like the white people he is most used to, because he can't read their behaviour and deems it 'suspicious', is much of an issue.

The point is that racism has never really been about what you feel in your heart of hearts, it's about how you treat people. In the context of people chatting on a street corner, there's not much difference, but in terms of society at large the gap is huge.

In the sense this visceral attack from the right wing is quite predictable, since it follows a long traditions of dealing with social issues in terms of personal morality. The thing is, the effect of this is quite predictable. It serves to try and change the focus of racial problems from systemic discrimination to individuals being evil. Since there's really very little society can do in practice to stop people being evil, the effect is simply to act a screen for racism - or if you really object to the term being used as it has for the past few decades, racist practice.

I know that people on internet boards tend to be very keen on pedantry, but I'm a little disappointed to discover how many people want to treat people badly in the name of terminological exactitude. Or if the objection is not merely technical, then why pretend otherwise? Why not say, loud and clear, that you're against racial equality?

when applying it to certain areas of social policy therefore means that your Indian neighbour who rants about the evil white people isn't a racist

You can call him a racist if you want to, but when people are talking about racism in society, he's only a problem if he has power. Do you honestly think lone nutters ranting about the evils of white people, or black people, is a social problem we need to do something about? Or are you only trying to justify a false equivalence here?

 

[KeepTalking]

No offense, but a black person calling a white person "honky" does not cause as much emotional damage because there is no ugly history of injustice invoked by the use of those words.

And this new-fangled definition of racism used by the FOX News crowd exists solely so that they can claim that white people are suffering just as much injustice as African-Americans despite everything we see on the news every day. The redefinition of racism that seeks to divorce racism from history exists solely so that privileged people can claim that they are also victims and therefore don't have to stop inflicting injustice on unprivileged groups.

Who cares how much emotional damage it causes? That's unrelated to whether or not the term is being properly used.

Exactly. I have been called honky, and fairly recently. It didn't bother me. In fact, my daughter, her boyfriend, and I (who were together at the time) had a good laugh about it. It kind of made our night. The black woman who hurled the insult at us was still exhibiting racism, even though it caused us no damage whatsoever. Racism is in the thought or deed of the racist, not in the affect it has on anyone else.