I might not have been clear lol.
There has been a definition of racism used in debate on here that basically says that a minority group or an individual member of that group can't be "racist".
In order to be "racist" you need to be a member of a majority group that has power, or just the group that controls the existing power structure.
I am thinking that according to this definition the white goverment in South Africa would have been racist because they had power, but they were not a majority group.
Since this definition has been used here as the basis of argument, I was merely pointing out that its a political definiton of the word designed to promote an agenda.
As for the Kappa Sigs. They are screwed bottom line. It will teach about going to far in the interest of emulation. *shrug*
Quote:
Originally posted by AKA_Monet
James--
If I understand you correctly, are you saying that the definition of the word or the meaning behind the word--which indicates emotion--or the systemics of the word, racism, in this context is political?
I have to disagree with you. Those little boys did not wear blackface because they were trying to make a political statement. In my opinion, they wore blackface because they thought their costume would be cool in that fashion. However, the viewers of their choices transcended the context of their meaning and made this issue a political one. The only thing I could come up with that is equivalent is when does one use the "N-word"? I personally, having identified and qualified myself as an African American have chosen to erase the concept from my mind. Like, who made that bullshit assed word anyways? Guess that is why I am not in English, but in science...
But I do agree that the meaning of racism is bogus and ill-defines the complexities of disagreements...
|