|
Racism (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Flyboy217
I'm a little bit confused here, Arbiter. If you claim that we must abide by an objective source, how can you also claim that its given definition (albeit a secondary one) is incorrect? Whether or not definitions should be updated to reflect their use in society is a question we must necessarily leave to those whom we trust to compile our objective source (viz., the editors of Merriam-Webster). Once they have made their choice, we must accept it, whether or not we believe it has an apocryphal etymology. |
The problem with the second definition is essentially what I wrote here:
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
If we are going to redefine racism, then we have to re-evaluate how society looks at racism (since we are no longer referring to the original set of beliefs). This is especially important if we are going to expand the definition of racism to encompass mere opinions. If all one has to do to be considered racist is hold certain opinions, then we cannot say that racism is "wrong" since opinions cannot be "right" or "wrong." |
I should note that it is indeed redefining the word to use it in such a context. The etymology of "racism" is traced back to Nazi beliefs in an inherently superior race. If we start to use the word to mean "racial prejudice or discrimination", then most arguments about racial issues will probably end up mired in equivocation as two sides use the word differently. Also, because the term "discrimination" is very broad itself, it opens the door to referring to things as racism even when it seems obvious to me that they shouldn't.
A good example of this would be a pollster who divided his results by race. He is discriminating between different racial groups, albeit in a very mundane way, when he marks their responses in a different columns. According to the second definition that was given for the term racism, this pollster is racist. If this is really the definition that society wants to accept, there's nothing I can do to stop them. However, if we are going to do that, it will have the consequence that we can no longer categorically refer to "racist" positions as being malformed or even necessarily undesirable.
This example makes me believe that it might be an instance of a fallacious definition:
http://datanation.com/fallacies/define/broad.htm
| quote: |
To be perfectly honest, I consider myself a very well-read and well-educated individual, and yet I cannot say that I have ever heard an objection to this second use. Although I, too, am a champion of using words in their "societally unadulterated" forms, in this case I cannot yet accept the sole validity of the first definition. Perhaps more research is in order on my part. |
I think that preserving a very narrow and specific definition which remains constant over time is generally a good idea. However, I would suggest that it borders on imperative when the term is both frequently used in serious social debate and also carries a significant emotional charge.
| quote: | | On another note, although it's scientifically accepted that there is no genetic basis for race, there is certainly a genetic basis for skin color and other attributes. This does give rise to statistics that leave room for racism--for example, that African-Americans have a considerably higher risk of sickle-cell anemia. As long as there are genetic predipositions in groups that we can visually identify, there will unfortunately be room for racism. |
You bring up a good point, which is that there are traits which tend to be associated with a particular race. Still, the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits appears fairly absurd to me.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Flyboy.
Regards,
Arbiter |
|
|
| DJ Mikey Mike |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
After reading this thread entitled “Gay or Asian? !!!”
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=170902
as well as being repeatedly frustrated by the degree of ignorance possessed by many individuals whom I encounter regarding racism, I feel somewhat compelled to try to repair the damage which growing up in a hypersensitive society seems to have done to many of us.
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines the term racism as such:
The first definition is the real definition and the second is a poor attempt to account for the widespread misuse of the word. If you have any doubt about the fact that the second definition doesn’t work, just refer to the definition of discriminate.
So allow me to get to the point. Racism is “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.” I would hope everyone would agree that racism is stupid based on this definition. However, there are a lot of things which I see commonly referred to as “racist” when in fact they are not. Consider the following:
Using racial slurs is not racist. To do so could be an indicator that you possess the beliefs necessary to qualify as a racist, but it could be completely unrelated. Therefore it is non sequitur to classify racial slurs as “racist” behavior.
In a more extreme example, possessing a sense of hatred against a particular racial group is not racist. Unless you hate them because you think they all possess some set of traits, or hate them because you believe they are inherently inferior, you’re not a racist. In fact, hating them isn’t a belief of any kind – it’s just an opinion – and therefore cannot be true or false, whereas racist beliefs are clearly false.
In an even more extreme example, carrying out genocide against some ethnic group is not racist. Unless, that is, you’re killing them because you believe they all share some particular trait or traits, or because you believe they are inherently inferior. If you’re killing them for some other reason and don’t possess those beliefs, you aren’t a racist – you’re just a mass murderer.
The point is that you shouldn’t throw around loaded terms like “racism” in situations where they simply don’t apply. Know what the term means and use it properly. If you’re truly interested in a genuinely colorblind society, realize that accusing people of being “racist” who are not doesn’t help your cause at all. It just makes you look like the ignorant one.
Whether you or I like it or not, there are going to be people who have opinions that we don’t like, or have a different sense of humor than our own. Calling these people racist when they are not is not only stupid, it’s downright inappropriate. So please, next time you’re thinking about busting out the “R” word, make sure it actually applies to the situation. You’ll be doing everyone a favor, including yourself.
Regards,
Arbiter |
 |
|
|
| Ian^ |
| Racism or Homophobism (if thats the right word) are both wrong and in this day & age should not be tolerated anywhere, however this is sadly the case in places, and I think I speak for everybody decent when I say that if you see it on ta, get a mod or del to do something about it, cos it's the one thing that is not right in any cases |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ian^
Racism or Homophobism (if thats the right word) are both wrong and in this day & age should not be tolerated anywhere, however this is sadly the case in places, and I think I speak for everybody decent when I say that if you see it on ta, get a mod or del to do something about it, cos it's the one thing that is not right in any cases |
Unnngggrrgghhhh did you actually read any of the posts in this thread or just its title? |
|
|
| Ian^ |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Unnngggrrgghhhh did you actually read any of the posts in this thread or just its title? |
just the title silly :p |
|
|
| whiskers |
stop cluttering the COR with useless smart threads
:haha: |
|
|
| icyhandofcrap |
| at least they are better than useless stupid threads :D |
|
|
| djSlain |
I watch disney a lot, just to keep my sister company of course ::shifty eyes::
is it good for Disney to air episodes of their lineup dealing with racial issues? i've seen them in Growing Pains, Sister Sister, Smart guy, the one with Penny Proud...? is it showing awareness, or is it just bringing back deep feelings to surface? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ian^
Homophobism |
Homophobia :)
p.s. I reserve myself the right to be corrected by a native speaker. |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Homophobia :)
p.s. I reserve myself the right to be corrected by a native speaker. |
you got it right. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Homophobia :)
p.s. I reserve myself the right to be corrected by a native speaker. |
Well, homophobia literally means a strong aversion to homosexuals or homosexuality. But it's generally the same thing - although the term heterosexism might be more appropriate:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/sear...ne=heterosexism |
|
|
| Flyboy217 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
The problem with the second definition is essentially what I wrote here:
I should note that it is indeed redefining the word to use it in such a context. The etymology of "racism" is traced back to Nazi beliefs in an inherently superior race. If we start to use the word to mean "racial prejudice or discrimination", then most arguments about racial issues will probably end up mired in equivocation as two sides use the word differently. Also, because the term "discrimination" is very broad itself, it opens the door to referring to things as racism even when it seems obvious to me that they shouldn't.
A good example of this would be a pollster who divided his results by race. He is discriminating between different racial groups, albeit in a very mundane way, when he marks their responses in a different columns. According to the second definition that was given for the term racism, this pollster is racist. If this is really the definition that society wants to accept, there's nothing I can do to stop them. However, if we are going to do that, it will have the consequence that we can no longer categorically refer to "racist" positions as being malformed or even necessarily undesirable.
This example makes me believe that it might be an instance of a fallacious definition:
http://datanation.com/fallacies/define/broad.htm
I think that preserving a very narrow and specific definition which remains constant over time is generally a good idea. However, I would suggest that it borders on imperative when the term is both frequently used in serious social debate and also carries a significant emotional charge.
You bring up a good point, which is that there are traits which tend to be associated with a particular race. Still, the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits appears fairly absurd to me.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Flyboy.
Regards,
Arbiter |
Thanks for the clarification; I believe I see your point now (although I don't know why I missed it the first time around:)). I would also agree that the term "discrimination" in the second definition is inappropriate. "Racial prejudice," however, seems to me a fair definition to include. I think we agree that it's probably the most commonly invoked definition. I also agree that by including this definition, we cannot label racism as right or wrong; however, I don't really see a problem with this (other than the fact that I will likely be flamed by TAs who can't be bothered to understand what I'm trying to say here;)).
And although in general I agree that racial slurs ("stupid honky/chink/n******/etc!") don't meet the definition of racist, I would guess that for the most part they are uttered primarily with an underlying racist belief. If it were possible for everyone to analyze carefully what is really being said when people speak, we wouldn't have such problems. But judging by some of the responses to this thread ("Oh dear! Racism is bad! Delete this thread!"), I think we can agree that's not likely to happen any time soon.
P.S. That "Too Broad" page makes the opposite goof when it claims "Not only squares have four sides of equal length; trapezoids do as well." They mean to say rhombuses, not trapezoids. :p |
|
|
|
|
