"Negro" in the historical context.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by xp2k

Or maybe I do and its all a matter of semantics (i.e. prejudice vs. racism).

That's not semantics.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That's not semantics.

I think here we are definitely dealing with definititions that do have a difference on an academic/technical level. As I understand Dr. Phil, the following two technical definitions are different.

A) John Smith is Prejudiced in regard to Race.

B) John Smith is Racist.

By the definitions that Dr. Phil is working from, statement A can be true of someone regardless of whether their race is in power or not. statement B can only be made by someone who is of the race which has power.

Now to the majority of the population who aren't familiar with those academic/technical definitions, those statements are much closer to each other than they are for those who specialize in the issue. Dr. Phil, have I correctly summarized your situation?

(Note I am *not* using majority/minority here, because as best as I can tell, the situation in pre-1985 South Africa was the same in regards to this definition as they were in the United States at the same time since Whites had power. Whether things have changed since 1985 in South Africa is, to me, a different issue)

[APhiAnna]

Originally Posted by naraht

I think here we are definitely dealing with definititions that do have a difference on an academic/technical level. As I understand Dr. Phil, the following two technical definitions are different.

A) John Smith is Prejudiced in regard to Race.

B) John Smith is Racist.

By the definitions that Dr. Phil is working from, statement A can be true of someone regardless of whether their race is in power or not. statement B can only be made by someone who is of the race which has power.

Just to clarify even further, because I always thought that situation B could mean which race holds power on a micro-scale (ie in a specific situation), but apparently from the academic standpoint it only matters who has the majority power in the society at large.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by APhiAnna

Just to clarify even further, because I always thought that situation B could mean which race holds power on a micro-scale (ie in a specific situation), but apparently from the academic standpoint it only matters who has the majority power in the society at large.

Maybe to help the argument could one say one is using the term in relation to institutional. Because even amongst academics there isn't a clear cut agreement. The only agreement is the belief that one is better and the other is deficient.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by naraht

(Note I am *not* using majority/minority here, because as best as I can tell, the situation in pre-1985 South Africa was the same in regards to this definition as they were in the United States at the same time since Whites had power. Whether things have changed since 1985 in South Africa is, to me, a different issue)

In race discourse, majority/minority is used primarily in reference to power dynamics (as well as often used in reference to population representation). South Africa (both Apartheid and post-Apartheid) is a place where the minority in terms of population was the majority in terms of power. The opposite is the case in America.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

In race discourse, majority/minority is used primarily in reference to power dynamics (as well as often used in reference to population representation). South Africa (both Apartheid and post-Apartheid) is a place where the minority in terms of population was the majority in terms of power. The opposite is the case in America.

Dr. Phil, is the remainder of the post (the A vs. B) correct?