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

[Bullgrit]

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.

It's not an issue of anyone being annoyed. It's an issue of watering down the meaning of something. If simply acknowledging a person's race is racism, if using an out-of-date neutral term is racism, if wearing a garment from outside your own culture is racism, then what is actually discriminating against a person because of their race?

If you equate a very minor item (be it a goof or misunderstanding or even neither) with a very major problem (like slavery, genocide), you are weakening the impact of the major problem.

Bullgrit

 

[Morrus]

It's not an issue of anyone being annoyed. It's an issue of watering down the meaning of something.

Language changes; that's OK. It's an organic thing, and if the definitions of certain things shift over time, that's perfectly natural. It's words we're debating here, when what's important are the actual issues. Words aren't people; who cares if they get watered down? They can't be harmed.

I disagree with the premise that "everything is racism" (as your meme graphic states). That's not even slightly true. Sure, maybe the topic is too sensitive for your preference right now; that's often the nature of change. A period of discomfort is often required.

If simply acknowledging a person's race is racism, if using an out-of-date neutral term is racism, if wearing a garment from outside your own culture is racism, then what is actually discriminating against a person because of their race?

"Discrimination". or, more specifically, "racial discrimination".

 

[Bullgrit]

So discrimination is the very bad thing. Racism is just a minor thing? We can laugh at a racist comment, now?

Bullgrit

 

[Morrus]

So discrimination is the very bad thing. Racism is just a minor thing? We can laugh at a racist comment, now?

I don't really know what that means or where it came from. No, racism is not a minor thing. Nobody said any such thing or thinks any such thing. I don't quite get what you're trying to do here, Bullgrit, but that was slightly uncomfortable.

 

[Bullgrit]

Sure, maybe the topic is too sensitive for your preference right now; that's often the nature of change. A period of discomfort is often required.

I am getting annoyed, now. By you trying to make this about me.

I remember now why I stopped posting here.

Bullgrit

 

[Morrus]

I am getting annoyed, now. By you trying to make this about me.

I remember now why I stopped posting here.

Fine; I'll let you get on with it. Consider me bowing out of the thread. It's making me incredibly uncomfortable right now, too. Enjoy!

 

[Janx]

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.

A clue with that one is that most folks (I assume) know it has a negative connotation. That it then references a demographic of people, makes it obvious that we should avoid using it. At least to me.

Whereas, the differentiation on people of color vs colored people vs blacks vs African American just strikes me as finding insult in nuance.

Ultimately, it becomes a minefield to reference or talk about race because somebody is going to object to how you phrased something. If talking is how things get better, quibbling over how somebody talks is what makes talking difficult and less desirable.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The deal about "African-American" being a sore point for some? Well it raises certain issues:

1) everyone else gets a country- Irish American, German American, Mexican American- we get a content instead, because our origins have been obscured or outright obliterated

2) though intended as a descriptor of American blacks, objectively, the term could objectively apply to African immigrants...including those who are Caucasian.

3) a lot of Africans don't want to be lumped in with American blacks. Remember, white people didn't go to Africa and collect their own slaves- it was Arab and African slavers who sold them to the Americans. Foreign Africans were also treated differently than American blacks in parts of the south, even during the 1800s.

Re: colored vs "people of color"

Honestly, that term was often used as just another racial epithet for blacks, whereas the latter is a neutral and broad term for non-whites. Persons taking offense at the latter are in error. Persons not realizing the former is an insult need a history lesson.

 

[JWO]

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.

Well I've already stated that I'm just presenting my understanding of the issues. I don't know for sure who originally coined the term 'people of colour' but from my reading, that's the term that people of colour are generally using nowadays so that's what I'm going to stick with until someone tells me otherwise.

I don't think that language develops in the way you seem to think it does. There's no group or council who are out there saying 'how can we make white people look racist?', it's more that a phrase gets coined, people latch onto it, people start using it and then it just becomes the accepted terminology organically over time.

 

[billd91]

A clue with that one is that most folks (I assume) know it has a negative connotation. That it then references a demographic of people, makes it obvious that we should avoid using it. At least to me.

Whereas, the differentiation on people of color vs colored people vs blacks vs African American just strikes me as finding insult in nuance.

Ultimately, it becomes a minefield to reference or talk about race because somebody is going to object to how you phrased something. If talking is how things get better, quibbling over how somebody talks is what makes talking difficult and less desirable.

Sometimes nuance can get in the way. There's a clip out there of a sports commentator talking about a player on the field during the World Cup. He referred to him as African-American... which might be OK if it he wasn't a French player. He would have been better off saying he was black rather than African-American - but the point arises, and I wonder, why he felt the need to bring up his race at all. And that's where the effect of racism gets you and can't be escaped. He's not just a soccer player. Or a French soccer player. He's a black soccer player.