you come beating like moth's wings: himynameiscarl: oh cool we’re in the “does ‘racism’ mean institutional...
oh cool we’re in the “does ‘racism’ mean institutional or all forms of race-based prejudice” argument
gonna drop some knowledge on your bitch asses, are you ready for this
1. racism’s first definition was as a term that meant “race essentialism,” that is, that race A has certain qualities because of the fact that they are of race A. furthermore, this extends to the belief that these qualities may make them inferior or superior to race B, who do not have said qualities. e.g. “all asians are good at math, therefore, asians are superior because of their math abilities”
2. then it came to refer to ideologies and policies BASED ON race essentialist beliefs, with a bias toward your own race. the ku klux klan held racist beliefs based on their essential view of black people, believed their own race was superior. you know the rest because you took a history class hopefully.
2.5. as an extension of this definition, “racism” came to be used as hatred of another person based on race, regardless of whether you believe in race essentialism or not. this is probably the most commonly seen usage of the term in common english parlance, and is what the vast majority of english speakers would believe you to be talking about if you brought it up
3. within the last thirty or forty years, this term and related terms has acquired the meaning of “institutional and possibly hegemonic systems of power based on racial profiling that benefits the ruling echelon of color.” this is the problematic definition for people because it’s a new definition that was originally used in academic sociological contexts, so most laypeople are only first exposed to it via articles and postings on the internet.
nothing is ever as complicated as “no, X actually means Y,” especially with terms like “racism” and “sexism”
people have been using definition number two because that’s been the definition everyone has been taught for the last howevermany years they’ve been alive. 3 is a very recent development; if you look it up in a dictionary, chances are it probably won’t be there. let me reiterate why: because “-ism” with the emphasis on it being an INSTITUTIONAL system of power is a definition that has only arisen recently, and it has only arisen recently in the CONTEXT of academic writing. thus, people HAVE NOT HEARD THIS DEFINITION until they came into contact with this specific context for which it was created
SO WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN:
race, racism, and the possibility of being racist are highly charged concepts fraught with a dizzying amount of cultural variables. the fact that the word has so many different denotations and connotations makes things even more complicated, because suddenly you have people claiming others are “racist” (definition 3) when the accused party is only familiar with the definition #2. so the first party is identifying institutionally oppressive actions in the accused party, and the accused party things that the accuser thinks that they literally hate POC. then you get a stupid internet disagreement that lasts for like five hours with nothing accomplished.
why is nothing accomplished here? BECAUSE EVERYONE IS FUCKING STUPID AS ALL HECK, AND THINKS THAT A WORD CAN ONLY HAVE ONE MEANING. these arguments turn into debates of semantics that go nowhere because THERE AREN’T ANY RIGHT ANSWERS IN SEMANTICS BECAUSE INTERPRETATION AND USAGE OF LANGUAGE IS ENTIRELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LISTENER. this is, in turn, defined by the whirling and whooshing kaleidoscope of thoughts, feelings, experiences, and all other such things that make up the human mind; that is to say, all words mean different things to everyone. no one perfectly agrees with anyone on what a word means, not even with the simplest of concepts
OH WOW DING DING DING CARL’S THE FUCKING GENIUS WHO FIGURED IT OUT FOR ALL Y’ALL’S SORRY ASSES
all three and a half definitions of “racism” i have provided correspond to real-world phenomena, ok? there are people who hate other people based on their race. that’s racism. there are systems of colonialist oppression based in race power structures. that’s racism too. there are people who think that mexicans are lazy because of their race, or that all asians are good with computers and smart and grade-oriented. that’s racist too.
say it with me
“when a word acquires a new definition, it doesn’t phase another out” ok?
words can have as many definitions as they need
now say, “a word can change definition based on whatever context its in”
social justice people: not everyone is familiar with the institutional usage of “-ism,” because that is a definition that has arisen recently in sociology and cultural studies. if you want me to pull the privilege card on you, i will: this term is a term that can only be acquired if you have the privilege of access to these schools of thought, ok? this isn’t a definition that is readily available to the layperson. it’s not even in a dictionary. quit gettin mad.
not social justice people: there are definitions of “racism” that you use, and there’s a definition of “racism” that is used in the social justice world to refer to a very specific and real system of oppression that exists. it’s less clunky for them to say “institutional racism” every time they need to say it, especially when we’re concerning academic writing that needs to be both precise in its definitions and concise in its form, ok? quit gettin mad.
furthermore, y’all need to understand this:
language change is a natural process based on the overwhelming majority of language users in a given pool of users. their use will reflect the circumstances that they are in. nothing you can do will change this. you cannot go into someone’s head and physically rewire how they conceptualize the term “racism,” especially not through the internet. #itsaprocess
the real-world concepts this word signifies, in all their plenitude, do indeed exist. the word is multi-faceted. one use of the word will not jeopardize another, because as long as these things exist, there will be a necessity for some sort of description of them. even if the usage of a term falls out of favor, its definition is not going to be lost without some seriously Orwellian processes, ok?
these issues you argue are hugely important and the ramifications are vast, and yet like schoolchildren, you’re still hung up on the fact that a word can have more than one meaning. sorry. there are no standard definitions for anything, not even in dictionaries.
everyone needs to shut the serious fuck up
Exactly. Exactly, exactly. Words only mean things because a certain number of people agree so, and everyone knows agreement is hard to come by. It’s important to make the distinction between definitions 2 and 3, but it must be done with the understanding that neither is 100% correct in every scenario. Language is too multifarious for that.
178 
