Is the term "racism" being stretched too far, applied to too many things?

[Morrus]

I sometimes wonder:
Are some folks trying to make racism seem more prevalent by identifying so much little stuff as racist.
or
Are some folks trying to make racism seem overblown by identifying so much little stuff as racist.

I think this world would be a lot happier if we only took offense when someone actually intended offense.

Bullgrit

I think you've hit on an important point.

We're going through - largely enabled by the internet and the communication it offers, but historically it happens over and over again - a large social change. The internet is a wonderful tool in its ability to enable or support such things. This change is primarily focused on race, gender, and sexuality right now, and its very high profile.

The overall outcome will be social change for the better. But big changes require a decreased level of tolerance for minor issues, because that trickles through. So in any social upheaval, you get a whole class of people who object to what they consider minor infractions being elevated to a higher importance.

That, unfortunately, is just too bad -- that's how social change gets powered. And yeah, it probably bothers some people, but that's OK too. It happens constantly, all the time, throughout history. When many of the inequalities in these areas improve, it'll be other stuff - ageism, nationalism, something else. And a bunch of different people will get upset about that; but that will be OK, too.

It's OK to find it annoying that the way things are phrased gets so much attention; but unfortunately, however annoying it can be, it's necessary. And people being annoyed is better than people being discriminated.

Make no mistake, something as trivial-seeming as language is an incredibly important and powerful agent of change. And the changes people strive for are changes for the better, and language is a fantastic tool in that battle.

And it's working.

 

[JWO]

And people being annoyed is better than people being discriminated.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Bullgrit]

I remember a Sanford and Son episode where . . . goes to YouTube, and SCORE!
[video=youtube;XEDzNA39Vvc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDzNA39Vvc[/video]
"Were they colored?"
"Yeah, white."

Oh man, I loved that show. Used to watch it with my dad.

Bullgrit

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

She probably thought she did know the meaning of the word because she had heard it used in a context that suggested to her, "a cacophony of varied overwhelming sounds." I mean, look at her hand gestures and how she was saying that Lady Gaga's voice is usually drowned out by her usual accompanying music.

I'm sure we've all learned a new word by hearing it used, only to later find out, oops, we didn't actually understand the word as we thought.

Exactly!

 

[billd91]

I think the criticism gets a bit overly shrill sometimes. I've said in another thread that I'm not exactly a fan of the furor over cultural appropriation. Getting on an individual's case about racism because they're a Swede in a kimono, a white woman in a sari, a white person with a Kokopelli tattoo, or, ripped from recent headlines, a white girl wearing cornrows is excessive. These generally aren't acts of racism. They're acts of personal style and the freedom to undertake those acts is part of what helps spread a culture's art and can help break down the use of those choices as negative cultural markers. If the hijab ever caught on as a publicly worn style among white European women, the French would have a harder time using them to negatively profile Muslim women.

That said, I can accept that some elements, particularly driven stereotyping and caricaturing rather than understanding, can be problematic. It would be nice if people on social media would calm their outragist tendencies and focus on those priorities rather than a relatively benign hairstyle, but that's the internet for you.

 

[billd91]

Exactly!

Yep, the language has quite a few common terms of speech like welshing on a bet, getting gypped, getting picked up in the paddywagon, and so on that have negative undertones. I figure everyone can get forgiven use by ignorance, but once they're up to speed, they should be a lot more circumspect.

 

[Janx]

People of colour' is a term that was specifically created by the people it is used to describe

..snip..
I'm white so it's not really my position to tell people of colour how they should be referring to themselves. I'd much rather sit back and listen and correct myself when I make mistakes.

Let's back up? How do we know that people of color invented the phrase people of color? What conference was this at? What declaration of preference was made? If it ain't on the national news and promoted, I call BS that anybody decided anything.

Somebody introduced the phrase. And made up a reason for it. And it's a fine enough reason. But there's no proof that the people who the phrase describes invented the phrase. Especially when the largest demographic is poor people and they sure as heck did not attend a conference debating the matter or vote on it.

So at best, a bunch of intellectuals who were black met and decided on it. The only legitimacy that has it that it is how THEY want to be addressed.

The side effect of what's going on is that whoever raises one of these points first seems to get to win. Now I look like a jerk for pointing out how they're just making stuff up and forcing everybody to go along.

How do we know whoever is changing the language is doing so in an actual good way? Because a side effect of this linguistic correctness is that its bullying. These guys are basically saying "since our way sounds smart, anybody who objects must be a racist, so we have to win by default." Except for Donald Trump, nobody wants to sound like a racist. It's a dickish way to change the world.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There are also those that get morphed over time due to misuse: consider "Indian giver".

If you look at the meaning of the term- one who gives a gift and takes it back- it rather pointedly describes the behavior of white leaders towards Native Americans. Properly used, it's the pale-faces who get stereotyped by that one...but DON'T use that term around your native friends & family, even correctly. Somehow, it has become an insult to them, not to their erstwhile oppressors.

 

[Morrus]

I think the criticism gets a bit overly shrill sometimes.

Sure. Omelets, eggs. There's no perfect mechanism for anything (just like the reparations discussion). But being occasionally annoyed at some shrill voices isn't really *that* much of a hardship, especially compared to the overall trend of positive social change. Like I said, some people being annoyed is the price of social change, and it's a perfectly fine - and trivial - price by me.

 

[Morrus]

How do we know whoever is changing the language is doing so in an actual good way? Because a side effect of this linguistic correctness is that its bullying. These guys are basically saying "since our way sounds smart, anybody who objects must be a racist, so we have to win by default." Except for Donald Trump, nobody wants to sound like a racist. It's a dickish way to change the world.

Woah! Back up a bit there, hoss!

If the goal is "changing the world", I guess if the price for that is "someone thinks we're dickish" then it's a price worth paying. But there's no Illuminati-style governing body directing all this! Language and social change are organic creatures. Nobody controls them. Nobody can control them (and many have tried). There's no secret .. err "dickish".. cabal inventing linguistic rules to force on you.

I would bet only half of the human population parses meaning from language so finely. This kind of linguistic subtext is what fuels anti-PC behavior and resentment because it tries to finger somebody as a racist or insensitive by looking for offense where none was intended.

How about we just eliminate adjectives from the language all together? No descriptors. Nobody's to be described as human, male, black, gay, chinese,disabled, happy or whatever anymore because I find such distinction offensive.

I think you're kinda missing the point. But I get that it irritates you. With respect, that's unfortunate, but I'm OK with people being irritated at a thing which does them no harm, but which is part of a in important social change for the better. I'd personally rather you redirect your anger at how words are being used and instead point it towards the actual inequalities and issues real people are experiencing, of course.

If your biggest problem is that you object to using "people of colour" rather than "coloured people", I envy you.