The Anti-Defamation League Changed The Definition Of Racism

I saw an interesting post on reddit that I had to look into. Appears it is true.

These crazed Progressive organizations are really turning up the propaganda on all this crap aren't they?

Their previous definition for racism:

“Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another.”

I didn't believe it until I went to their webpage.

www.adl.org...

Racism: The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.

Also related are the definitions of Race and Systemic Racism.

a reply to: infolurker

The irony.

How was the ADL built?

Further irony is that the new definition is racism.

Is there a word for double irony?

a reply to: infolurker

Well when your organization can’t find enough racism you have to take action and manufacture some.

This is how you know that racism is not science.

Anyone can make up their own rules for it.

A lotta angry white people incoming. But let me stress they are just coincidentally white and that's not why they are angry about this.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
A lotta angry white people incoming. But let me stress they are just coincidentally white and that's not why they are angry about this.

And if theyre not? Well, youll call them white....but thats not racist....

a reply to: TzarChasm

Are you suggesting that only white people can be racist?

Do you think its ok to deliberately alter and manipulate the English language to further an ideological agenda?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
A lotta angry white people incoming. But let me stress they are just coincidentally white and that's not why they are angry about this.

There are a whole lot of brown people that aren't because speaking Spanish does not make you brown.
Most Hispanics are white, you know, because Columbus committed genocide in America.

google the census date for south and central america.
And yes, I happen to be one of those

The definition of racism has not been changed, it has been more clearly defined. Humans define things to help us understand them. The older definition of racism was not enough to truly understand it.

There was a time when there was no racism. Racism is dependent upon the understanding that people of all races are ''people'. The time before when there was no racism in western culture was when if one was not white, one was not human. One was less than human. One was merely an advanced form of animal.

We have known for a long time that racism has been built into the social structures and economic structures of nations and cultures. It's not new. In fact, the definition as pointed out in the OP was published almost two years ago.

I wonder just what it is about this expanded definition that seems to be raising hackles.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Racism has always existed....and its always been pretty much self-explanatory.
One race thinking it is superior to others.

No amount of spin and propaganda can change that.

What changes is 'our' recognition of that.

Language can and does change, but its a natural development.....evolution if you like.
This is forced change to the 'definition' in order to further an in vogue ideological viewpoint and it doesn't represent the word and more important the idea as is generally accepted and used by the vast majority of people.

Anyone or anything that seeks to further one race over another - for whatever reason - is racist.
Anyone or anything that seeks to put down and repress one race or another - for whatever reason - is racist.

According to this racism does not exist if there are no "white people". And only "white people" can be racist. Black on Asian crime that's been happening has no "racism", so no hate crime there.

They'll change it in a few years to "kill da whit people"

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
The definition of racism has not been changed, it has been more clearly defined. Humans define things to help us understand them. The older definition of racism was not enough to truly understand it.

There was a time when there was no racism. Racism is dependent upon the understanding that people of all races are ''people'. The time before when there was no racism in western culture was when if one was not white, one was not human. One was less than human. One was merely an advanced form of animal.

We have known for a long time that racism has been built into the social structures and economic structures of nations and cultures. It's not new. In fact, the definition as pointed out in the OP was published almost two years ago.

I wonder just what it is about this expanded definition that seems to be raising hackles.

Maybe because Racism is not something that just happens in the US or whatever cross section you want to assign. I think there is Racisim in most of the world where there are few if any "White" people as you classify them in charge or even present.

This is just simply political as anyone with any color of skin tone anywhere in the world can be racist.

Disagree?

Racism in China and India: Racism: The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.


I don't think that works that well do you? Political spin ineffective.

a reply to: infolurker

So only people of color can experience racism, these people will go down as being on the WRONG side of history

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

That's a load of crap.
There was never a time where all humans were nice to each other without any distinction.
Today it's skin colour, yesterday it was belief, before that it was something else relevant to the times.
One tribe always thinks they are cleverer than the other. In everything. Football fans, North South differences, you name it.
The strange fact is that there will be times that one tribe is kind of better. Gradients and differences are unavoidable.

Just because white people have made some large progress doesn't mean it was always them.
The cradle of civilization was in Mesopotamia, these people were Arabs.

They had slavery and universities and were much further ahead than us forest dwelling Europeans.

In Africa the Egyptians didn't do too badly. Aztecs and Incas and of course China once was better, more advanced than some others.

This is why the new definition is actually racist against a currently successful people who happen to share a blooming skin colour.

We are a very small minority, sorry for doing well.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: TzarChasm

Are you suggesting that only white people can be racist?

Do you think its ok to deliberately alter and manipulate the English language to further an ideological agenda?

I'm suggesting that a lot of white people are going to be very defensive because they don't like being scrutinized, and that's what it means when definitions are updated. Someone is surgically inspecting the elements of our culture and who is actually a victim and who is just pretending to be a victim because they have to share.

originally posted by: sraven
This is how you know that racism is not science.

Anyone can make up their own rules for it.

great!

now lets apply the same logic to covid mandates.

a reply to: infolurker

So being their a non governmental organization, do you think the governments of the world will adopt their definition?

I'm kinda leaning towards no. Or It's a 50/50 shot at best.

a reply to: Freeborn

Anyone or anything that seeks to further one race over another - for whatever reason - is racist. [/quoe]

Was the abolition of slavery racist? Slavery removed one of the over time established social structures of racism. Right?
Slavery sought to further one race over the established social structure of another race, that race being the prevailing race of slave owners. I don't see how any one can deny this.
Can this also be said about the civil rights movement? Furthering the advancement of one race over the entrenched institutional practices of what had once been the slave owning race. Abolition of slavery did not eliminate racism, it sprung up in other often more subtle forms.
This observation of institutional racism is not new, just the exposure of many to it's insidiousness . I learned about it in high school 60 years ago.

a reply to: infolurker
Abe Foxman just about founded the ADL; and in 2015 became a
Director Emeritus. Maybe 2016, memory holies.

My deal is this. The ADL has hypocritically used racism as the
main tool of suppression since the Korean Conflict lost steam.
A lot of people around here have been completely bamboozled
by just the definition of antisemitism. It's a favorite of mine.

Last angle... whatever redefinition for a trigger word from a
propganda mill (already in use) gives me that old feelin'.

EDIT -PS Then I read the damned thing again, because the def
was so twisted it looked to me like a mirage. No so lucky today.

a reply to: infolurker

No, I do not disagree. I do agree that recognition of prevailing social structures that maintain the advantages available to some people and unavailable to other s based on that skin color should be challenged and modified.