But Seriously...

Since the last time this topic came up, I happened to sit on a quiet weekend and watch a documentary on the Korean War. I haven't had the opportunity to sit and give that conflict much thought for quite some time. The documentary was about the Battle of Chosin, which is the Chosin Resevoir in North Korea. If anyone here has interest in the Korean Conflict, I recommend you watch this. The death toll and suffering on both sides was terrible, 10's of thousand of people killed or maimed over the course of only a few days. Those who survived or merely were injured in the fighting died from exposure in the dead of winter.

This was a stark reminder to me of what happened, how we thought we had the battle in the bag and were going to march straight to the Chinese border and be done with it. The Chinese had other plans for us. MacAurthur, a military genius, was stymied in Korea. For all intents and purposes we were defeated in North Korea or as they said at the time: "We didn't retreat, we advanced in a different direction". My point here is that while our military capabilities have increased dramatically, so have our enemies. Beyond that, our military at the time was far more advanced than that of China and they still defeated us. I only hope the President watches The Princess Bride before considering his options, it provides the sage advice necessary to make the right decisions: "You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia"

 

Both putting up a statue and taking it down are "virtue signaling." Considering that the majority of those statues were put up not right after the Civil War but during the Jim Crow era, I think it's worth considering exactly what "virtues" we'd like to be signaling.

If you want to argue that a working definition of "racist" that doesn't necessarily include structural elements of power is misguided, then do so. I happen to disagree, as do a few others on this thread. But saying "words have immutable definitions" is a specious argument unbecoming of the intelligence of this thread. Unless you go around using gay to mean happy, using "Oriental" to refer to Asian people and using "terrible" to mean great and majestic, you have acknowledged that language evolves. Particularly in a sociological context.

And calling somebody stupid for believing that language has evolved in this case? When it's a broadly -- if not completely -- accepted academic standard? That strongly suggests that you're out of your depth in this conversation.

 

Why does the story of the Tower of Babel keep popping into my mind?

Genesis 11:7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.

 

To answer your last question first, something like "race-based prejudice" is clunky but accurate. Or, you could use "racism" as a shorthand, but with the acknowledgment that it means something different than the structurally-based definition. Or you could just keep using it as a broad catch-all term, I'm not your gender-neutral care provider. I'm less concerned with that than I am with the knee-jerk and honestly rude way you dismissed people in this conversation. My pearls are tightly grasped within a trembling fist.

Now! Let's talk about the *word* "racism."

Sometimes, people seem to have this weird notion that words just appear fully formed out of the ether, and that dictionaries are divinely mandated. But things are always a bit more nebulous than that.

The first (recorded) time the word "racist" was used was in 1902, not that long ago! Betty White was already in her 20's by then. The dude who used it was a man named Richard Henry Pratt, and he said this:

"Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism."

Sounds like a modern definition right? Prejudice based on race? Here's the problem though -- he followed it up with this:

"A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one," Pratt said. "In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man."

So, based on the context, it seems clear that he *didn't* just mean that judging people based on their race was racism, but had a specific, cultural intent with his new word -- namely, ending segregation. He definitely would not recognize the way even you use racist today, because the notion that a non-white race could have intrinsic value was outside of the scope of his thinking. He was, ironically enough, racist.

Jump ahead to 1935, which is the year the word "racism" made it into the Oxford English Dictionary. It defined racism (or "racialism") thusly:

"The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race."

As you can see, in just those few decades, it already shifted away from RHP's original line of thought, and into the anthropological question of whether race exists in any genetically meaningful way.

In 1965, the UN had an International Convention to end racial discrimination, and they declined to use the word racist, but did define "racial discrimination". It did it like this:

"The term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

As you can see, in just 60 years we've already moved from "racism is segregation" to "racism is anthropology" to "racial discrimination is about denial of fundamental rights."

Perhaps not coincidentally, it was just 5 years later that Patricia Bidol described racism as "prejudice plus power." (Bidol is a professor at American University). In the following decades, that definition became prominent among liberal sociologists, and came to inform a particular school of thought.

Around the same time (sorry I don't have the exact year for this one), Oxford and Merriam updated their definitions. Oxford went with "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior," which is more or less how the people in this thread seem to be using it.

Merriam is interesting here. Their first definition:

1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Is spiritually similar to the 1935 OED. However, their second definition:

2. a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles. A political or social system founded on racism.

Is much more in line with the UN and Bidol, insofar as it defines racism as a political position. From there, it's a short leap to the idea that in order to enact racism, one needs to have some sort of social or political power.

So what does this all mean?

tl;dr: There are a number of different working definitions of racism, which is a relatively young word that started as a way of saying "Indians should act more European," and has gone through a number of changes. It is both reasonable and in keeping with academic tradition to define racism in terms of power structures.

 

Because the fact that there are a number of working definitions of racism doesn't mean that they are all equally valid, and it especially doesn't mean that people all have to agree. The dictionaries don't even agree! The UN doesn't agree with the dictionaries! Sociologists don't agree with each other and none of those official groups can keep up with how quickly language evolves, particularly in the social media era.

Listen, if you said "I believe that your definition of racism, while valid, is not the proper framework to discuss this issue," that would be a starting point for a discussion. It might even be a fruitful one. But what you said is "you're stupid, words have meanings," which basically positioned you as not understanding the very subject you were positioning yourself as the authority on.

Also, calling it new in scare quotes doesn't make any sense! The "prejudice + power" definition is CLOSER to the first OED entry than it is to today.

It also isn't strictly about black/white, thought that's how it tends to manifest itself in the US and other countries built on the transatlantic slave trade. Japan/China/Rwanda etc. etc. have all had racism that didn't involve white people at all.

 

I answered that first! You could call it "prejudice" or "race-based prejudice" or you could call it "terrible (new definition, not old definition)" or you could coin a neologism and see if it sticks, or you could just call it racism, it's a free country, but a lot of people will wind up disagreeing with you.

 

If you needed people to be nice to you to get riled up about racism, I'm not convinced you ever really gave a shit.

I'm not sure how you could read my posts and get the impression that I haven't been reading the thread, because my primary problem with you in this thread is that you were rude and dismissive about an issue that you had insufficient information on.

I gave three different examples of how it's not just a white/black thing! In fact, it started as a purely Native American issue, and it's an issue that indigenous people in both the US and Canada face to this very day, as well as countless other groups.

Did you know Patricia Bidol, the person who created this framework, is white?

This is a legitimate and academically supported position to hold (re: the United States). It's taught at Harvard. You can feel free to disagree with it, and many people do (some more intelligently than others), but the fact that you somehow think that it is surprising or stupid suggests that your research into the subject has been lacking.

 

Didn't say it was right because it was taught at Harvard. I said it was academically supported because it was taught there. Two very different statements.

These are your words. A few pages ago you called the idea "blatantly, provably wrong." That was incorrect from both an academic and linguistic perspective. If you had said "this idea is controversial", I wouldn't had any cause to share all that research.

Also, you're an admin of this board. You should not be calling people trolls and/or fucking stupid because they have opinions that you have not bothered to do any research on.

Because one person posted something, got berated and didn't feel like defending their (honestly not that out there) belief further?

I doubt you'll ever believe this, but maybe somebody reading will -- this is a great example of the intersection of formal and informal authority, and how they impact the framing of conversations. You moderate this board. You're an admin. You have a great deal of influence. When you choose to call somebody a troll or stupid, their replies aren't coming from equal footing, and for a lot of people, it's not worth it. That you would then take their unwillingness to engage further on those grounds as a personal affront is like, a picture perfect example of the dynamic I've been trying to describe.

Be honest with me, or failing that, yourself -- how much research have you done about racism? What about linguistics? Before I posted it, did you know how the word was first used?

 

Probably because this place has the racial diversity of a Sufjan Stevens concert.

I know, but it's nice to hear you say it.

 

Probably because you were so subtle about it.

 

This was nice of them:

St. Louis honors Anthony Lamar Smith with resolution

 

It's a Kanye concert, we outnumber you!