The definition of racism they were using comes from Sociology, and not only is it painfully racist itself, it's politically foolish. I disagree with the definition of racism used in Sociology vehemently, but I do recognise that most of the young activist types who support it are genuinely trying to make a positive difference. The problem is, they're too stupid to realise that redefining terms like this, in such a way that the meaning better reflects their agenda but also maintains the power of the term that comes from the common understanding, is sabotaging their own cause.
You ask the average person what racism is, and they'll give you a definition that resembles that of the dictionary. Discrimination on the basis of race, or the belief that one race is superior to others. Being called a racist is fairly high up the list of the worst things you can call a person, a few ranks shy of paedophile perhaps. Because of what racism means to most people, it is a powerful word.
The race activists and sociologists who redefine racism change its meaning, saying that it's the privelige afforded to the majority and the manifestation of the power disparity between the majority and minorities and therefore, it is an exclusively white practise (since white people hold more power etc) and a universally white attribute. Even if a black person beats up a white person, calling them honkey and cracker all the while (as laughable as those terms are, they're a good indicator of racism), he's not being racist, he cant be, he doesnt have the institutional, society-level power to be racist. Fuck that bullshit.
These young activists go around using their warped definition of racism to try and change people who are using the common/dicitonary definition of racism. How can they not see that this is a recipe for disaster? They want the advantage of their meaning of the word, with the common perception of the power of the word, and all they do is alienate people by insulting them with one of the worst labels you can apply to a person. Either they're too stupid to realise that most people arent using their definition of the word, or they think that by offending people those people will become more amenable to their message. Fucking morons.
The other part of their message that pisses me off is the "white privilege" term. It seems to imply something unfair that white people get, when more accurately I think it should be called minority disadvantage. There are some things that white people get, that white people and all people should get, but that minorities dont. The problem isnt that white people get these "priveliges", but that minorities dont. Some people might call it a semantic difference, but when you want to appeal to the majority, white people, many of whom dont think about or understand the issue, to be most effective you need to think about
how to communicate your message.
Of course, when you look at things like
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack many of the items on the list are unavoidable manifestations of a majority/minority situation anyway. Of course there are genuine issues here, but that list sems designed to "provoke" people in a way that isnt actually conducive to positive change - the number of times I've seen that list make people angry, rather than sympathetic/enlightened or whatever... well, I've never seen it help the race activist or whatever cause.
"Talk not of flight, for I shall not listen to you: I am of a race that knows neither flight nor fear, and my limbs are as yet unwearied." Battle with Aeneas and Pandarus - Book V
.
