Essence, you shouldn't take my lack of a response to your particular articles as lack of activity on my part. I simply didn't find many things in any of those three original articles to support any conclusion that either I am racist, or that my statement was racist. In fact, I found quite the exact opposite, both by definition and by empirical example. You ask me if I read them, I certainly did, the question is, did you?
-----
I hardly feel that your first author's thesis concerning how the specific anti-racism policies of the Unitarian Universalist Church are flawed is going to apply much. Especially when the basis for these anti-racist policies is that:
- One. All whites in America are racists.
- Two. No blacks in American are racist. They're prejudiced just like everybody else, but they lack the power of institutional resources to force other racial groups to submit to their will. Thus they can't be racist because racism in this conceptual scheme is defined as prejudice + power.
- Three. Whites must be shown that they are racists and confess their racism.
The author rejects them out of hand, I reject them out of hand, and she goes further to give specific examples of how they are flawed. While there are specific definitions and sentences which are relevant, and again prove that my statement isn't racist, nothing within the context of the article struck me as applicable.
The second author spends his turn at the keyboard disproving a formula, Racism = Prejudice + Power. Now, while the middle sections of his article concerning semantics, semiotics and complex meaning are applicable in the discussion concerning specifi words in my original statement, this doesn't mean I have to agree with everything the author says. I completely agree with him that "while a dictionary definition is certainly a good guide to meaning of a word, it must also be seen within the context of the social, economic, and political class of its user at any given time." The problem I have is that this very analysis is going to be fundamentally flawed on this board, where we will never know the true social, economic or political class of any particular poster. Therefore any analysis based on anything other than pure definition is going to be flawed.
The author states my argument that "this is an educational matter and that in the face of the fact that most people have a broader definition of racism is akin to the widespread incorrect use of many words. The problem with that argument is that it assumes that there is a prescriptive element to language that can be deployed in a non-political way." He goes on from there to explain how in his view, prescriptive words have been used, and in fact, are only used, as a tool for political oppression. While I expect this argument from a Marxist, I don't agree with anything he says about language, and an analysis of my original statement from a purely dialectic point of view of assinine.
Your third author was an intersting read, about as interesting as stereo instructions, simply because this is only the first chapter of a much longer thesis and as such is dedicated mostly to defining the words, conditions, and arguments to be discussed later. While those later pages would probably be much more enthralling, this isn't. I did make it through however and again, not much applies, and nothing supports a charge of racism to be applied to my statement.
The author refers to a definition of an individual racist as "one who considers the black people as a group (or other human groups defined by essential racial characteristics) are inferior to whites because of physical (i.e., genotypical and phenotypical) traits. He or she further believes that these physical traits are determinants of social behavior and of moral or intellectual qualities, and ultimately presumes that this inferiority is a legitimate basis for that group’s inferior social treatment. An important
consideration is that all judgments of superiority are based on the corresponding traits of white people as norms of comparison."
I of course reject out of hand that I referred to any inferiority, either actual or perceived in my original statement, and hence, this definition doesn't apply at all. The first chapter doesn't even get remotely interesting, or applicable, until the end of page 21, where in one paragraph he compares racism and predjudice. He states that, "o
ur conception of prejudice focuses on an attitude or belief that is negative and based on a faulty and inflexible generalization about a person because he or she is a member of a particular group. Race-based prejudice often leads to racist behaviors—but not always. A person can have race-based prejudice but not act on it (see Schutz & Six, 1996). Racism, on the other hand, involves intentional or unintentional actions that oppress others."
A very powerful statement, and one which I agree with completely. I've agreed completely that my statement was stereotyping, and I threw that out there as the basis for a further discussion, but not a single person has even used the word "prejudice" in this thread except as titles in articles they post, they've instead always fallen back on the word "rasicm". In other words, I'm fully open to the argument that my statement is prejudiced, but not to it being racist.
The rest of the chapter is in fact devoted to the fact that my statement could not possibly have been racist because I have no power over anyone here on this board, and the power to oppress is the basis for racism.
-----
The reason, Essence, that I didn't respond is because I didn't want to waste my time pointing out that none of your articles applied, except as much as they apply in a Google search turns up interesting names to the web links. You wanted a critique however, and you now have it. Instead of pointing out how I've supposedly not read your articles, why not give specific examples from your articles that supposedly point out how my statement is racist. Expecting someone to read entire articles to try and figure out your point, and then finding out that you don't have any point to be found in the articles, is a bit obtuse.
I've followed your instructions once about reading articles to try and gather your point, I'm not going to do it again concerning crooked versus straight thinking. If you don't want me to ignore your posts entirely out of hand, pick examples, state your argument, back it up from your sources, and explain how it applies. Then and only then will I respond. The entire "these articles prove you wrong" or "you didn't read any of the articles I posted so you're wrong" arguments are fruitless in trying to convince me of anything except the laziness of the poster.
You've stated that my original statement is racist. Prove it. You've stated that my arguments explaining that it isn't racist are the result of crooked thinking and hence invalid. Again, prove it. The burden of proof here isn't on me, it's solely on you. Again, please don't fall back on the "read my articles to see how you're wrong" nonsense that you've done twice already...
