The dictionary definition is not adequate for defining racism.
The majority of people agree with how the dictionary defines racism and that’s how it is used in common language and legal contexts.
It is a vocal minority of absolute fools who insist it’s about systems and power and not the discrimination that everyone else so clearly recognises it as.
You people throw the word “majority” around a lot. I’m whiter than you are and I can acknowledge that there’s a dimension of subtext in the word racism related to power structures. “Me and my drinking buddies” does not constitute a majority.
If you’re trying to talk to people don’t define the word to inherently include systemic power structures, then you’re never going to get anywhere by refusing to use language in a way that they understand. There’s no harm in specifying “systemic racism“ if the people you’re talking don’t include “systemic“ in their idiolectic baseline definition of racism. But just telling a person they can’t experience racism when their definition of “racism“ is simply analogous to prejudice will only make them defensive and hostile
And why exactly is it my responsibility to adapt to their idiolectic preferences? They understand the concept, or they wouldn’t get so damn angry about it.
They absolutely understand the concept and it’s ignorant to treat them like children that don’t understand.
What say the great grumbling masses? Any of you not understand what I mean when I use the word that way? Or does this guy who thinks you’re too dumb to understand have a point?
What they’re annoyed by is the feeling that they got rug-pulled by the fact that the specific meaning of the word is different to different people. Always has been, we just didn’t need to address it when we were discussing the more obvious gross misconduct of yesterday; it was close enough both ways. And now it’s not.
Because you’re the one trying to convince someone you’re correct. If you can’t even properly use the words defining the concept you’re discussing, why would they listen to you?
There’s already a term for what you’re describing, systemic racism, that will communicate your point in a way that doesn’t end with you arguing semantics and not getting anywhere in the actual conversation. Redefining terms to mean something the other person doesn’t agree with just turns your debate about a concept into a meta debate about what words mean.
How about you explain in depth what you mean by that instead of being really vague and condescending. Can you do that? Can you explain in depth and with precise language what you mean by that? If you actually have knowledge you want other to also have, please go ahead and share it.
I didn’t think I was being condescending, but I apologize if I came off that way. I’m happy to explain what I mean. Why don’t you associate racism with power?
The discrimination is on the basis of race. That doesn’t make it right, that doesn’t mean that’s the actual reason they’re doing it in their minds. You’re adding unnecessary context to the base word instead of adding the appropriate expansions to the base word to make it fit the desired context.
No it’s just that words can sometimes mean different things depending on context. It’s not “unnecessary” when you’re actually trying to understand the long term effects of 400+ years of slavery, oppression, and atrocities.
The only kind of people who find it “unnecessary” are the kind of people with no actual genuine interest in grappling with our horrific racist past which is the only way we could ever possibly begin to repair that shit. They’d rather just ignore it and pretend it never happened. Or immediately get weirdly defensive because “they didn’t personally do slavery”.
Let’s look at some of the most well known historic instances of racism:
Slavery: an institution that cruelly subjugated black people. It was enforced by the provisional governments in North America before the US revolution, enshrined into the Constitution, and required a civil war to end. People in power: white men
The Trail of Tears: an illegal genocide of several Native American tribes, which had them march over 1000 miles to Oklahoma. People in power: white men
The Chinese Exclusion Act: this was the first time the US border was strictly enforced. It was designed to stop people from China and the Philippines from entering the US, on racist grounds. It was used to deport Chinese people that had just finished building the Transatlantic Railroad. People in power: white men
Redlining neighborhoods: the US and banks worked together to provide cheap loans for buying houses and starting businesses. Zip codes were classified as low risk, medium risk, and high risk. It was never stated outright, but there was high correlation between black people living in an area and being associated with more risk. Black people almost never qualified for a loan, because their zip code was in a “high risk” (redlined) neighborhood. People in power: white men
Building the national highway network: when deciding where to build highways, white neighborhoods were usually avoided and instead divided or destroyed minority neighborhoods. People in power: white men
Jim Crow: the famous “separate but equal” laws, which controlled several aspects of black people’s personal lives and legally entrenched them as second class citizens to white people. People in power: white men
a series of ongoing persecutions and killings of the Muslim Rohingya people by the military of Myanmar. (not white people)
Persecution of Uyghurs in China
Widespread human rights violations by the Chinese Communist Party against the Uyghur people
(not white people)
Yazidi genocide
The Yazidi genocide was perpetrated by the Islamic State throughout Iraq and Syria between 2014 and 2017. It was characterized by massacres, genocidal rape, and forced conversions to Islam.
(not white people)
Darfur genocide
The Darfur genocide is the systematic killing of ethnic Darfuri people which has occurred during the war in Darfur.
(not white people)
Effacer le tableau
Effacer le tableau (“erasing the board”) was the operational name given to the systematic extermination of the Bambuti pygmies by rebel forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
(not white people)
Massacres of Hutus
During the First Congo War, troops of the Rwanda-backed Alliance des Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Congo-Zaïre (AFDL) conducted mass killings of Rwandan, Congolese, and Burundian Hutu men, women, and children in villages and refugee camps in eastern Zaire.
(not white people)
and on and on and on.
A certain skin color is not a requirement for being shitty to your fellow humans.
I appreciate your input. However, this entire conversation was in the context of specifically the US. The dimension of power exists in all of those cases as well.
I agree with you, however I’d argue that it was the aftermath of his death that displays how racism is about power, rather than his murder. The reason I’m calling it interpersonal is because most accounts accused him (falsely) of catcalling/whistling at a white woman
The sooner you accept that racism is about power, the better you will understand it. The dictionary definition is not adequate for defining racism.
The majority of people agree with how the dictionary defines racism and that’s how it is used in common language and legal contexts.
It is a vocal minority of absolute fools who insist it’s about systems and power and not the discrimination that everyone else so clearly recognises it as.
You people throw the word “majority” around a lot. I’m whiter than you are and I can acknowledge that there’s a dimension of subtext in the word racism related to power structures. “Me and my drinking buddies” does not constitute a majority.
If you’re trying to talk to people don’t define the word to inherently include systemic power structures, then you’re never going to get anywhere by refusing to use language in a way that they understand. There’s no harm in specifying “systemic racism“ if the people you’re talking don’t include “systemic“ in their idiolectic baseline definition of racism. But just telling a person they can’t experience racism when their definition of “racism“ is simply analogous to prejudice will only make them defensive and hostile
And why exactly is it my responsibility to adapt to their idiolectic preferences? They understand the concept, or they wouldn’t get so damn angry about it.
They don’t understand the concept. And using language in a way they don’t understand doesn’t help.
They absolutely understand the concept and it’s ignorant to treat them like children that don’t understand.
What say the great grumbling masses? Any of you not understand what I mean when I use the word that way? Or does this guy who thinks you’re too dumb to understand have a point?
What they’re annoyed by is the feeling that they got rug-pulled by the fact that the specific meaning of the word is different to different people. Always has been, we just didn’t need to address it when we were discussing the more obvious gross misconduct of yesterday; it was close enough both ways. And now it’s not.
Because you’re the one trying to convince someone you’re correct. If you can’t even properly use the words defining the concept you’re discussing, why would they listen to you?
There’s already a term for what you’re describing, systemic racism, that will communicate your point in a way that doesn’t end with you arguing semantics and not getting anywhere in the actual conversation. Redefining terms to mean something the other person doesn’t agree with just turns your debate about a concept into a meta debate about what words mean.
Your double-standard with regards to who gets permission to revise the language is duly noted.
By all means, don’t change your behavior and keep wasting your breath on arguments you participate in where you can’t agree on terms.
And there is exactly where you lost any credibility with me
My heart breaks, random internet snowflake.
“As a white person”
That’s rich, considering who’s talking.
Without referring to the dictionary, explain why it’s foolish to ascribe a dimension of power to racism.
It’s not foolish, there’s just another term for it, it’s called “systemic racism”. Not all racism is systemic
Nope, that is just your own made up definition of the word.
How about you explain in depth what you mean by that instead of being really vague and condescending. Can you do that? Can you explain in depth and with precise language what you mean by that? If you actually have knowledge you want other to also have, please go ahead and share it.
I didn’t think I was being condescending, but I apologize if I came off that way. I’m happy to explain what I mean. Why don’t you associate racism with power?
Because it’s not powerism, it’s racism.
Whiteness itself is proximity to power.
That’s why it can change, like for Italians and Irish
The discrimination is on the basis of race. That doesn’t make it right, that doesn’t mean that’s the actual reason they’re doing it in their minds. You’re adding unnecessary context to the base word instead of adding the appropriate expansions to the base word to make it fit the desired context.
No it’s just that words can sometimes mean different things depending on context. It’s not “unnecessary” when you’re actually trying to understand the long term effects of 400+ years of slavery, oppression, and atrocities.
The only kind of people who find it “unnecessary” are the kind of people with no actual genuine interest in grappling with our horrific racist past which is the only way we could ever possibly begin to repair that shit. They’d rather just ignore it and pretend it never happened. Or immediately get weirdly defensive because “they didn’t personally do slavery”.
I have no idea why you’re trying so hard to talk about anything except the literal actual thing we’re talking about. This conversation is over.
Let’s look at some of the most well known historic instances of racism:
lets look at some more.
Rohingya genocide
a series of ongoing persecutions and killings of the Muslim Rohingya people by the military of Myanmar. (not white people)
Persecution of Uyghurs in China
Widespread human rights violations by the Chinese Communist Party against the Uyghur people (not white people)
Yazidi genocide
The Yazidi genocide was perpetrated by the Islamic State throughout Iraq and Syria between 2014 and 2017. It was characterized by massacres, genocidal rape, and forced conversions to Islam. (not white people)
Darfur genocide
The Darfur genocide is the systematic killing of ethnic Darfuri people which has occurred during the war in Darfur. (not white people)
Effacer le tableau
Effacer le tableau (“erasing the board”) was the operational name given to the systematic extermination of the Bambuti pygmies by rebel forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (not white people)
Massacres of Hutus
During the First Congo War, troops of the Rwanda-backed Alliance des Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Congo-Zaïre (AFDL) conducted mass killings of Rwandan, Congolese, and Burundian Hutu men, women, and children in villages and refugee camps in eastern Zaire. (not white people)
and on and on and on.
A certain skin color is not a requirement for being shitty to your fellow humans.
I appreciate your input. However, this entire conversation was in the context of specifically the US. The dimension of power exists in all of those cases as well.
Moving the goal posts seems to be a hobby of yours
You expect me to take this seriously as a rebuttal?
I’d like a list of interpersonal racism that has the same historical impact, then. I’ll help you get started:
I don’t think you can make sense of the Emmett Till lynching and its aftermath without the social context. It’s an expression of (systemic) racism.
I agree with you, however I’d argue that it was the aftermath of his death that displays how racism is about power, rather than his murder. The reason I’m calling it interpersonal is because most accounts accused him (falsely) of catcalling/whistling at a white woman
You just love moving those goalposts so you can keep having a leg to stand on.
I don’t love you doing it. Ta-ta.
Me: racism is about power. Lists a bunch of racism
Me: ok, then list some famous historical instances of interpersonal racism.
If racism is about power then why can’t I call Obama the n word
If you (the reader) don’t upvote the above comment you hate diverse perspectives which is basically the same thing as being racist. Checkmate lemmy
If you don’t upvote the above comment I will hunt you down and tickle your feet when you least expect it.
Hee hee hoo hoo
Because of the institution of slavery, which still affects the lives of black people to this day. A black person in power does not erase history.