I think you mean you are being a prescriptivist. In a descriptivist action, they added the new definition to Merriam Webster like 2 years ago. This is because they decided it makes sense to have a different and more useful definition of “racism” and “racial prejudice.”
the purpose of refining the racism definition as “power + prejudice” was to move discourse away from the idea of being racist as a personal failing, and instead focus on structural oppression and the material reality of minority groups.
Basically liberal society largely seems to have conceived racism as ‘being irrationally mean’, but for people with a materialist anti-racist perspective, that definition isn’t productive or insightful and the lack of material, tangible progress for black people post-civil rights made it clear that there needed to be more focus on power dynamics and historical context to combat racism.
I’d recomend Beverly Tatum’s work , her perspective is very informed and compelling
No I mean descriptivist, as in I support descriptivism and what I’ve stated is how people actually use and understand the word racism.
I don’t care why an idiot tried to redefine a perfectly good word in the 1970s but they failed because most people disagree with them.
tangible progress for black people post-civil rights made it clear that there needed to be more focus on power dynamics and historical context to combat racism.
This might be news to you but we’re communicating in English, and not everything written in English centres on or concerns the USA.
According to one woman who wrote this bullshit in 1970.
One person making a claim does not make something true, Patricia Bidol-Padva doesn’t just get to change what words mean because she studied at a shit university.
Also you’re out of date on your nonsense because critical race theory says you’re wrong
I’m not sure I agree. The precepts of “racism is ordinary”, social construction of race and social convergence seem to place racism directly in a systemic/social embedding.
And that doesn’t even begin to address the inherent social nature of intersectionality.
I would go as far as saying that in CRT racism is expressly defined as a property of society as a whole. Not merely prejudice based on skin color.
I must say, you are a very poor communicator. You are jumping down people’s throat all over the thread, but trying to get info from you on your stance is like pulling teeth.
Why are you even here?
That said, “CRT does not use the word racism” is not exactly illuminating to the matter at hand. It’s also not true. Delgado& Stefanic mentions racism 16 times in the introduction alone.
Hate to be a descriptivist but no, you don’t just get to change what a word means and then get mad because people are using it the correct way.
Racism is discrimination based on race, no matter how many arts majors screech otherwise.
Arts majors?
I agree with your comment but… Arts majors?
………yes that’s what I said and that’s generally the sort of misinformed muppet spouting this nonsense I have encountered.
I think you mean you are being a prescriptivist. In a descriptivist action, they added the new definition to Merriam Webster like 2 years ago. This is because they decided it makes sense to have a different and more useful definition of “racism” and “racial prejudice.”
the purpose of refining the racism definition as “power + prejudice” was to move discourse away from the idea of being racist as a personal failing, and instead focus on structural oppression and the material reality of minority groups.
Basically liberal society largely seems to have conceived racism as ‘being irrationally mean’, but for people with a materialist anti-racist perspective, that definition isn’t productive or insightful and the lack of material, tangible progress for black people post-civil rights made it clear that there needed to be more focus on power dynamics and historical context to combat racism.
I’d recomend Beverly Tatum’s work , her perspective is very informed and compelling
No I mean descriptivist, as in I support descriptivism and what I’ve stated is how people actually use and understand the word racism.
I don’t care why an idiot tried to redefine a perfectly good word in the 1970s but they failed because most people disagree with them.
This might be news to you but we’re communicating in English, and not everything written in English centres on or concerns the USA.
Racism is systemic discrimination based on race. For bigotry to become systemic, it has to be interrelated with social systems and hierarchy.
Then what is “systemic racism”? That’s a much more common term (in my experience) than “systemic discrimination”?
I also hear people say ATM Machine all the time. Common doesn’t mean it’s not redundant.
According to one woman who wrote this bullshit in 1970.
One person making a claim does not make something true, Patricia Bidol-Padva doesn’t just get to change what words mean because she studied at a shit university.
Also you’re out of date on your nonsense because critical race theory says you’re wrong
Not really though, right?
In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s the other way.
Yes, really. Critical race theory has a conflicting definition of racism to the nonsense in the OP.
Not that CRT is without issues but it’s funny how many people claim to support something without having read a damn thing.
I’m not sure I agree. The precepts of “racism is ordinary”, social construction of race and social convergence seem to place racism directly in a systemic/social embedding.
And that doesn’t even begin to address the inherent social nature of intersectionality.
I would go as far as saying that in CRT racism is expressly defined as a property of society as a whole. Not merely prejudice based on skin color.
In CRT racism is defined under four categories, of which two address the so called prejudice + power, neither of which is simply labelled as ‘racism’.
I’m done here, people keep referencing some dog shit work from the 1970’s like its gospel and redefined a word for every society globally.
I must say, you are a very poor communicator. You are jumping down people’s throat all over the thread, but trying to get info from you on your stance is like pulling teeth.
Why are you even here?
That said, “CRT does not use the word racism” is not exactly illuminating to the matter at hand. It’s also not true. Delgado& Stefanic mentions racism 16 times in the introduction alone.
Not what I said.
I have been very clear on my stance for anyone who can read.