Quote:
Originally posted by James
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.
|
Um...was this supposed to have a point, or were you just fining tuning your ability to be unecessarily verbose?
I will attempt to wade through the words and find some sort of meaning in order to respond.
First of all, no one said that BECAUSE a culture is dominant, then they MUST be racist. It is a correlation, not causation. Here in the United States, yes, the dominant culture AS A WHOLE perpetuates a system of oppression on minorities. Does that mean that each individual of the dominant culture is inherently racist? No, of course not.
Again, I am not at all sure what your point was from this post, so I am not really sure what to expound on.
btw, DeltAlum, I have strong Cherokee blood...maybe we are cousins! lol
