A common thought among the social justices bloggers today is that they can change the definition of words to benefit their own argument. This is not how that works. The dictionary definition of words are definitions that the english language has wholly agreed upon to represent an…
Why do people believe the dictionary is the end-all, and most accurate thing there is? The post above claims that the definitions in the dictionary are “wholly agreed upon” but that is not the case. The dictionary was written and has been maintained by white men. This small group does not speak for everyone nor did they get everyone’s approval on anything. It is ethnocentric to think that one culture’s dictionary speaks for the entire world.
The post above says that words can change, adapt, and take on new meanings, yet wants to down play that racism has been defined by social scientists. I for one, would not hold much value the opinion of someone who has never experienced what he or she is talking about.
The dictionary is not by any means perfect, nor is it the end all be all, I agree. However, the definitions used in the dictionary are explanations as to how people who use the english language use specific words to define specific ideas and concepts. The people who write and rewrite and maintain the dictionary realize that we occasionally use the same word in different ways to convey different ideas and characteristics and base the amendments to words’ definitions on common language trends in today’s society. These white men aren’t trying to oppress you by using the language to erase oppression, its just defining the word “racism” specifically as a form of discrimination. This leaves the definition, as generally used in today’s society, as something that can be used against all races, but can also be used to oppress if used by the majority against a minority.
I am not giving them the ‘benefit of the doubt’. I think the dictionary defines the word “racism” purposely to erase the responsibility of white people by saying they themselves could be victims too instead of accurately listing them as an oppressive power.
Are you attempting to belittle the validity of the definition or racism defined by social scientists?
If you think that people who use social trends to define words are solely doing so just to attack you/other people, you are insane and just trying to keep alive you own victimized mentality.
You are literally using words that have been defined by the exact same people with the exact same context they applied to them, which seems a tad hypocritical.
And I know nothing of the “social scientists” you hold so much validity in, care to source them to me?
I didn’t say they are used to attack; I said the definition is used to erase responsibility. I am not “insane” for believing that the writers of the dictionary want to erase white people’s responsibility. And even if I were “insane” it doesn’t mean everything and anything I say is invalid.
Who has the bigger victim complex someone who wants white people not to cover up their past, and current actions, of racism, oppression, genocide etc, or the white people who want to be viewed as victims of racism when they have never been the victims of racism?
also, this is a good read:
http://racismschool.tumblr.com/post/45721834083/who-defined-that
My apologies for saying attacked, I knew what you meant. However, what I stay I still stand behind.
To answer your question: No one is trying to cover up the white race’s history of oppression, mainly because they can’t. Hell, white people nowadays can barely say the word “black” without people believing them to be racist. The history of racism from white people has been obvious and clear that the first thing people think when they hear racist is a white person. However, both the dictionary definition as it stands to day AND the definition you cited (thank you for citing by the way) both suggest that white people can experience racism (not oppression). I say this because the definition you cited didn’t erase the current definition but added to it, saying that the word can be used as a form of discrimination AND as a system of power. This is different because now you can define which definition you are using in your claim. Now i can say that Im using racism against white people to mean discrimination based on their white skin, instead of using the other definition that white people dont experience which is oppression based on white skin.
How can you say that white people do not attempt to cover up their past and currents oppressions? The following is just one example of institutionalized racism. My daughter, who is in 2nd grade, was in class this past November and the teacher, a white woman, told the class the “Indians” are all gone even though the white people “tried to save them”. Here is another small example, I perform at schools with a team of Native American dancers, drummers, and artists. We put on a show and teach the children a few crafts. The last show I did three classrooms were in agreement saying that there are no Native Americans alive today, even thought we were showing them proof of our existence. I could go on forever but I doubt anyone will listen to me.
I maintain that I believe racism = prejudice + power. Racism is institutional and systematic. White people can experience prejudice and/or discrimination but as they are an oppressive power they do not experience racism.