• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The (re)definition of the word racist

 
 
 
C

crispy

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
299
Location
Somewhere windy and rainy
Basic Beliefs
why do you care?
The last half year I've been hearing more and more people define the word racism as only applying to systemic racism, or racism+power. First of all, I don't understand why some want to change the definition that 99.5% of the people know, and second, where is the line of power drawn? Is it a country as a whole? The whole world? Specific institutions? And what about this case:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...use-im-an-ethnic-minority-woman-10243202.html

Isn't she in power in this example? It seems like if you're a white male and showed up at "diversifying the curriculum" event, you wouldn't be welcome, and your input would be ignored.
 
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.
 
What Tom said. Also, the unscientific and political motive behind this non-psychological definition is first to deny the natural psychological roots of racist thinking so that it can be cast as a purely social/political construction, and second to deny the immoral racism inherent to the policy solutions they push to "fix" the impact of past racism (e.g., affirmative action).

You hear such a definition often among those pretending to be social scientists, but really are just pseudo-intellectual political activist willing to make any absurd argument to achieve particular political ends.
 
crispy said:
The last half year I've been hearing more and more people define the word racism as only applying to systemic racism, or racism+power. First of all, I don't understand why some want to change the definition that 99.5% of the people know, and second, where is the line of power drawn? Is it a country as a whole? The whole world? Specific institutions?
Click to expand...

Defining (or redefining, as the case may be) 'racism' as racism + power is self referential, and does not make for a good working definition. How do I know what the definition of the word racism in the equation (racism + power) actually means if that word has been co-opted to mean 'systemic racism'. If someone wants to talk about systemic racism, rather than the more general term, they should just use the term 'systemic racism'. To me the redefinition is a transparent attempt to avoid being called out for what the person might think is a less egregious form of racism.

crispy said:
And what about this case:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...use-im-an-ethnic-minority-woman-10243202.html

Isn't she in power in this example? It seems like if you're a white male and showed up at "diversifying the curriculum" event, you wouldn't be welcome, and your input would be ignored.
Click to expand...

I have a similar example from my previous workplace. I was discussing a former employee from Costa Rica with two coworkers from India, one of whom is still a very good friend, and neither of whom were easily offended. My good friend said in a joking manner that the person in question was Mexican. In response I joked that he was being racist, because the guy was actually Costa Rican, not Mexican, and my friend knew that. To which he responded, apparently serious, that he couldn't be racist because his skin was brown. Our other Indian coworker agreed with him. I could not convince either one of them that they could indeed be racist, despite being a member of an ethnic minority (at least in the US). It was a rather bizarre conversation to me. I can only assume that they had bought into this redefinition of racism as well.
 
I think it's a definition that stupid people push to sound intelligent. That there's some special knowledge they're privy which you're not. Like non-whites cannot commit murder because murder = killing + power.
 
That woman in the article would feel right at home on this board. :)

I've come to learn that when someone says they want racial diversity, what they really mean is "fewer white men". Lots of white guys in STEM fields? Outrageous!...we need more minorities!! Lots of black guys in the NBA? Lots of women in early education? Um, nothing to see here....move along.
 
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.
 
ronburgundy said:
Also, the unscientific and political motive behind this non-psychological definition is first to deny the natural psychological roots of racist thinking so that it can be cast as a purely social/political construction, and second to deny the immoral racism inherent to the policy solutions they push to "fix" the impact of past racism (e.g., affirmative action).
Click to expand...

This. Exactly this. It is a way to turn a complicated and widespread psychological issue into a simple political issue of minority oppression. It always seems to come with a political agenda.
 
thebeave said:
I've come to learn that when someone says they want racial diversity, what they really mean is "fewer white men". Lots of white guys in STEM fields? Outrageous!...we need more minorities!! Lots of black guys in the NBA? Lots of women in early education? Um, nothing to see here....move along.
Click to expand...

There was a history of disenfranchisement and discrimination against women, racial minorities, and certain other minority groups. For something like STEM, we wouldn't normally think there is a reason any one group should be more likely to enter this field than another. This is why it is concerning when the level diversity of people in STEM doesn't roughly match the level of diversity in the general population, but rather seems to select for a set of people who are historically more privileged on average. By level of diversity, I mean if the population is roughly 50% female, it's reasonable to expect approximately that amount of people in STEM are also female with all else being equal. It is possible the discrepancy is not a matter of discrimination, but there was reason enough to raise the question.

In areas where we do more naturally expect discrepancies, some concerns over discrimination may exist, but we don't tend to expect proportionate representation across gender, race, or other variables. For instance, I doubt many people are concerned that most country singers seem to be white. There is not a massive outcry that police, firefighters, and armed forces tend to draw more men than women provided the women who do join are treated fairly.
 
krypton iodine sulfur said:
thebeave said:
I've come to learn that when someone says they want racial diversity, what they really mean is "fewer white men". Lots of white guys in STEM fields? Outrageous!...we need more minorities!! Lots of black guys in the NBA? Lots of women in early education? Um, nothing to see here....move along.
Click to expand...

There was a history of disenfranchisement and discrimination against women, racial minorities, and certain other minority groups. For something like STEM, we wouldn't normally think there is a reason any one group should be more likely to enter this field than another, which is why it is concerning when the diversity of people in STEM doesn't match the level of diversity in the general population, but rather seems to select for a set of people who are historically more privileged on average. It is possible the discrepancy is not a matter of discrimination, but the was reason enough to raise the question.

In areas where we do more naturally expect discrepancies, some concerns over discrimination may exist, but we don't tend to expect proportionate representation across gender, race, or other variables. For instance, I doubt many people are concerned that most country singers seem to be white. There is not a massive outcry that police, firefighters, and armed forces tend to draw more men than women provided the women who do join are treated fairly.
Click to expand...

Don't intend to be OT, but really?
 
Trausti said:
krypton iodine sulfur said:
There was a history of disenfranchisement and discrimination against women, racial minorities, and certain other minority groups. For something like STEM, we wouldn't normally think there is a reason any one group should be more likely to enter this field than another, which is why it is concerning when the diversity of people in STEM doesn't match the level of diversity in the general population, but rather seems to select for a set of people who are historically more privileged on average. It is possible the discrepancy is not a matter of discrimination, but the was reason enough to raise the question.

In areas where we do more naturally expect discrepancies, some concerns over discrimination may exist, but we don't tend to expect proportionate representation across gender, race, or other variables. For instance, I doubt many people are concerned that most country singers seem to be white. There is not a massive outcry that police, firefighters, and armed forces tend to draw more men than women provided the women who do join are treated fairly.
Click to expand...

Don't intend to be OT, but really?
Click to expand...

One could likely rewrite "we wouldn't normally think there is a reason" to "there isn't actually a good reason". We can understand the reasons, but think they shouldn't be there.
 
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.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
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.
Click to expand...

The definitions would be made up ones, which are not in the English language.
 
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.
 
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.
 
It is nice to see so much sanity on this now. It was less than a year ago that this was a contentious issue here and a bunch of people were insisting on redefining the word as in the OP.
 
Metaphor said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's racist, dude :mad:
 
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."

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom