But this is a situation where the word "racism" is being defined as a political term with a context. The definition and context is then used to foster a type of argument.
People could say that dominant culture is inherently "racist", from this definition, because they perpetuate negative stereotypes on a minority and have the institutional power to make those views felt on the minority population.
So the previous white government in South Africa was "Racist" by this definition. However, the current black government is now "racist".
In any kind of debate it is important to agree on the definitions being used.
I understand the logic behind this definiton of "racism" and would be willing to accept it in the spirit it was being written if I were reviewing a position statement where the person was giving an analogy, metaphor, and a perspective.
I don't find this to be a useful definiton for debating here, because there doesn't seem to be significant agreement that this definiton stands.
So it confuses the debate, and puts us in a circular argument over the definiton of a word.
Sorry for this digression into argument deconstruction.
Quote:
Originally posted by librasoul22
If that is the case, you mean PREJUDICED. Yes, anyone of any race can be prejudiced. However, in order to take that next step into racism, one must possess enough power to actually exert some form of oppression on another race. You really should take a look at the Prejudism thread (if you have a good 4 hours, lol), because there was a great discussion. In case you didn't know, this is only about the 45th time race has been debated on GC, lol. 
|