I love John's comment about attending to what ordinary people feel and not to the statements of hypereducated people. John has a Ph.d. yet he can relate to the common person. *
This reminds me of how I recently learned that the term "Asian" (as in "Asian people") supposedly arose as a replacement for "Oriental" in the late 1960's. This would come as a surprise to anyone outside of academic or activist circles in the late 20th century (including Asians themselves), who would no doubt attest that "Oriental" was the accepted term for people whom we now call "Southeast Asian" (and usually just "Asian", which most people don't consider to apply to the various darker-skinned Caucasians of Western and Northern Asia) until at least the early 1990s.
Of course, this doesn't stop smug young progressives from treating the term like an offensive relic from the Vietnam War era.
The term "racism" is not the same as the term "racial prejudice." Racism is the belief that all the members of one race are inferior to all the members of another. It was scientific consensus up until the 1940s that blacks were inferior to whites in every way -- that blacks were, in fact, an inferior sub-species of homo sapiens. Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists of the 19th century operated on this assumption, and it was universally assumed to be the truth. Of course, the achievements of many black intellectuals, businessmen, athletes, and entertainers erased true racism from American life by the end of WW II, and should have done so earlier. But in order to keep the political fires burning "racism" was redefined to mean personal racial prejudice. That was understood during the 1960s and 70s to be the attitude we should be trying to overcome. What rankles anybody who thinks about it is that the antiracists are telling us we cannot possibly escape our personal racial prejudice simply because we're white. I suppose they want us to believe that white people are genetically wired to hate and oppress black people, which is just as absurd as believing that black people are genetically inferior in every way. I know the "racism" horse has already left the barn and will not be corralled again, but it's a term we should discard from usage because the concept is dead.
Racism is the idea that there are "races", which then can be inferior or superior to one another. Racism then takes the inferior/superior part and transforms it into the order of "races", which until the mid 19th century did not exist. "Races" were invented to classify human diversity before evolutionary and genetic approaches took over. Many so-called anti-racists believe that slavery is an expression of and directly cause by racism. But racism is a consequence of slavery (or oppression in general) not the other way round. First there was slavery and afterwards followed a justification why these people were slaves and didn't deserve better. That's what generates racism. It is not about the presumed "race", but about status and the justification for one's place in the hierarchy. Malcolm X in his autobiography told the story that he expressed as an 8 year old his wish to become a lawyer and his teacher said: "You can't be a lawyer, Malcolm!" (followed by some N-word stuff, I don't want to repeat). While the victims of this disgusting behaviour, experience it as a personal humiliation, the system was really about Malcolm not allowing to become a lawyer, because this would have endangered the hierarchy. Don't believe it is about "race".
The problem of the belief that there are "races" is simply that the word was invented to create ideological patterns, which reflected the inferior/superior hierarchies. Historical coincidence merged it with skin colour, but skin colour is not even remotely meaningful in a genetic context. The use of "races" is the currency of racist anti-racists who can use it as weapon. Since it was becoming fashionable recently to have a "race", the old slaveholder's language which categorized in "black", "brown" or "white" is having a renaissance.
To make it stop, Americans should learn to avoid a word like "race".
I understood what you meant but there will be a lot of people who will willfully feign misunderstanding. The way of the world we live in right now. Keep using their “misunderstandings” to educate
Get a better editor? Get some folks to give you critical feedback on articles prior to submission?
You're writing in a world where too many people are actively doing bad takes, looking to distort and take out of context even the clearest writing. Even worse, they don't stop with the bad take, but instead often fabricate around the edges.
With this piece, you can guarantee that the woke will be forever telling people "He said nobody ever talked about racism until the 1960's" - they're not content to simply ignore your clarification and smear you with the worst take on what you originally wrote. No, they'll fell the need to distort it further, because only the most absurd takes seem to resonate with too many people these days.
I'm sure some people will disagree with me but I think you stated it well. My reading of the history is that prior to the mid-1960s, the civil rights movement focused largely on the elimination of racially prejudiced policies like legally enforced segregation in many spheres and enforcement of voting and other rights. It wasn't until the 1964 civil rights bill that the focus started to shift more to personal conduct that could be characterized as racial prejudice when viewed by reference to broad social trends. I think this was the root of the debate at that time, and still ongoing, of what benchmarks would be used determine when decisions could be characterized as racist in practice if not in intent.
Of course we redefine language in order to redefine history. One cannot know, fifty years in advance, how a word can be redefined and misconstrued. And if we live in fear that our words will be misinterpreted, indicted and convicted sometime in the unknown future, then out only protection is silence. But silence is not an option.
John, I am 75 years old and I do not remember the terms "racism" or "racist" being in common use until fairly recently when certain activists started using them as buzzwords. The words in the 50s-70s and perhaps later were "prejudice" and "racial prejudice." As far as racial, racism and racist, the words came about in the 1930s and referred to Hitler's policies in regard primarily to Slavs then later to Jews.
I seem to remember connecting "George Wallace" with "racist" back in the day when he ran for President in 1968 (made an impression because he actually came to our little town for some reason, as did Humphrey.)
I love John's comment about attending to what ordinary people feel and not to the statements of hypereducated people. John has a Ph.d. yet he can relate to the common person. *
I agree with John/you completely, but hope that this dustup does not delay sending our No. 7 of THE ELECT!!!
This reminds me of how I recently learned that the term "Asian" (as in "Asian people") supposedly arose as a replacement for "Oriental" in the late 1960's. This would come as a surprise to anyone outside of academic or activist circles in the late 20th century (including Asians themselves), who would no doubt attest that "Oriental" was the accepted term for people whom we now call "Southeast Asian" (and usually just "Asian", which most people don't consider to apply to the various darker-skinned Caucasians of Western and Northern Asia) until at least the early 1990s.
Of course, this doesn't stop smug young progressives from treating the term like an offensive relic from the Vietnam War era.
The term "racism" is not the same as the term "racial prejudice." Racism is the belief that all the members of one race are inferior to all the members of another. It was scientific consensus up until the 1940s that blacks were inferior to whites in every way -- that blacks were, in fact, an inferior sub-species of homo sapiens. Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists of the 19th century operated on this assumption, and it was universally assumed to be the truth. Of course, the achievements of many black intellectuals, businessmen, athletes, and entertainers erased true racism from American life by the end of WW II, and should have done so earlier. But in order to keep the political fires burning "racism" was redefined to mean personal racial prejudice. That was understood during the 1960s and 70s to be the attitude we should be trying to overcome. What rankles anybody who thinks about it is that the antiracists are telling us we cannot possibly escape our personal racial prejudice simply because we're white. I suppose they want us to believe that white people are genetically wired to hate and oppress black people, which is just as absurd as believing that black people are genetically inferior in every way. I know the "racism" horse has already left the barn and will not be corralled again, but it's a term we should discard from usage because the concept is dead.
Racism is the idea that there are "races", which then can be inferior or superior to one another. Racism then takes the inferior/superior part and transforms it into the order of "races", which until the mid 19th century did not exist. "Races" were invented to classify human diversity before evolutionary and genetic approaches took over. Many so-called anti-racists believe that slavery is an expression of and directly cause by racism. But racism is a consequence of slavery (or oppression in general) not the other way round. First there was slavery and afterwards followed a justification why these people were slaves and didn't deserve better. That's what generates racism. It is not about the presumed "race", but about status and the justification for one's place in the hierarchy. Malcolm X in his autobiography told the story that he expressed as an 8 year old his wish to become a lawyer and his teacher said: "You can't be a lawyer, Malcolm!" (followed by some N-word stuff, I don't want to repeat). While the victims of this disgusting behaviour, experience it as a personal humiliation, the system was really about Malcolm not allowing to become a lawyer, because this would have endangered the hierarchy. Don't believe it is about "race".
The problem of the belief that there are "races" is simply that the word was invented to create ideological patterns, which reflected the inferior/superior hierarchies. Historical coincidence merged it with skin colour, but skin colour is not even remotely meaningful in a genetic context. The use of "races" is the currency of racist anti-racists who can use it as weapon. Since it was becoming fashionable recently to have a "race", the old slaveholder's language which categorized in "black", "brown" or "white" is having a renaissance.
To make it stop, Americans should learn to avoid a word like "race".
I understood what you meant but there will be a lot of people who will willfully feign misunderstanding. The way of the world we live in right now. Keep using their “misunderstandings” to educate
Get a better editor? Get some folks to give you critical feedback on articles prior to submission?
You're writing in a world where too many people are actively doing bad takes, looking to distort and take out of context even the clearest writing. Even worse, they don't stop with the bad take, but instead often fabricate around the edges.
With this piece, you can guarantee that the woke will be forever telling people "He said nobody ever talked about racism until the 1960's" - they're not content to simply ignore your clarification and smear you with the worst take on what you originally wrote. No, they'll fell the need to distort it further, because only the most absurd takes seem to resonate with too many people these days.
Touchy, touchy! This must be a a Twitter attack thing.
I'm sure some people will disagree with me but I think you stated it well. My reading of the history is that prior to the mid-1960s, the civil rights movement focused largely on the elimination of racially prejudiced policies like legally enforced segregation in many spheres and enforcement of voting and other rights. It wasn't until the 1964 civil rights bill that the focus started to shift more to personal conduct that could be characterized as racial prejudice when viewed by reference to broad social trends. I think this was the root of the debate at that time, and still ongoing, of what benchmarks would be used determine when decisions could be characterized as racist in practice if not in intent.
Of course we redefine language in order to redefine history. One cannot know, fifty years in advance, how a word can be redefined and misconstrued. And if we live in fear that our words will be misinterpreted, indicted and convicted sometime in the unknown future, then out only protection is silence. But silence is not an option.
John, I am 75 years old and I do not remember the terms "racism" or "racist" being in common use until fairly recently when certain activists started using them as buzzwords. The words in the 50s-70s and perhaps later were "prejudice" and "racial prejudice." As far as racial, racism and racist, the words came about in the 1930s and referred to Hitler's policies in regard primarily to Slavs then later to Jews.
I seem to remember connecting "George Wallace" with "racist" back in the day when he ran for President in 1968 (made an impression because he actually came to our little town for some reason, as did Humphrey.)