The Anti-Defamation League Changed The Definition Of Racism

a reply to: Madviking

I was heavily involved in Rock Against Racism and other anti-racist activities back in the early to mid-80's.
The UK was in many respects a massively different place back then - far more violent and racism was endemic.

As a society we have made huge progress.
But yes, racism still exists - in many different forms - and must be opposed at all times.

Bollocks like this - as with most woke dictates etc - despite their alleged lofty ideals are simply far more divisive than they are good.

Is it any wonder when most of this sort of nonsense originates from a middle-class academic intelligentsia that has absolutely nothing in common with ordinary working people, regardless of race?

I could rant on about the social and class divisions within our society but what would be the point?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Madviking

I was heavily involved in Rock Against Racism and other anti-racist activities back in the early to mid-80's.
The UK was in many respects a massively different place back then - far more violent and racism was endemic.

As a society we have made huge progress.
But yes, racism still exists - in many different forms - and must be opposed at all times.

Bollocks like this - as with most woke dictates etc - despite their alleged lofty ideals are simply far more divisive than they are good.

Is it any wonder when most of this sort of nonsense originates from a middle-class academic intelligentsia that has absolutely nothing in common with ordinary working people, regardless of race?

I could rant on about the social and class divisions within our society but what would be the point?

Right, so to your point I responded to, a common logical or ideological fallacy in woke social justice warrior camp is "if you disagree with any aspect of our current ideology, even a small percent, it must mean you support racism, sexism, etc." Or like Tzar Chasm, it's never meritorious, constructive criticism, it can only be a sign of guilt and defensiveness.

To the rest of your points, agreed. The old school left focused more on social-economic class and the power structure. Now, the new progressives are mostly ignoring class and proposing a neo-liberal, divisive, and reductionist identity (race, gender) based praxis. This has its place to a degree, but not when class and global history are ignored. In their new model, a white kid growing up with an opiate addicted mother in a trailer park is more privileged than Obama or Oprah.

Also, their neo-liberal identity politics seeks to simply diversify existing power structures, from Wall Street to the military. See, if we just get some women and people of color into relevant leadership positions, THAT is social justice. No need to deconstruct war mongering, rapacious hedge funds, etc.

I actually believe that the bastardization of social justice and the left into this new model is being used by powerful people to divide and control people, including people of color.

a reply to: Madviking

I can't really disagree with any of that.

I actually believe that the bastardization of social justice and the left into this new model is being used by powerful people to divide and control people, including people of color.

That makes two of us.

To have this kind of understanding of racism and to agree with it is to show the ignorance of some people.

"White" is a minority in world affairs. So when we refer to "minority" we're typically referring to one country, but in the world affair of things, whites are a minority.

Second point, I would sympathize with the point made in the new definition of racism MORE, had black tribes not existed for the sole purpose of the slave trade. Furthermore, if we're going to point fingers at anyone, we only need to point to the people that STILL have slavery to this day, who were the BIGGEST purveyors of slavery throughout world history, Islam.

But I must be a nazi right winger...Far from it.

You'd probably assume I'm white too...

Wow you know what I just realized

Bill Gates pushes vaccine agendas in Africa for decades.

Africa has the highest fertility rate in the world, the top 10 countries as far as fertility rate are all African countries.

Could Bill Gates, the great progressive and liberal "science" tzar (sorry Fauci), be the REAL white supremicist, trying to stop the African people from procreating?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

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

It's not an expanded definition, it's a contracted definition in that it ignores racism unless white people can be blamed for it.

By the ADL's definition, Israel is a more racist country than the US. At least until they get a Prime Minister of color.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm not white and angry about this ..... Now what ?

But white is a color. And face it, the vast majority of us working class are not white privileged people, we are peons working for the people who are getting rich off of us....seems like using that definition the highest percentage of racist people would live in DC.....many of them would be high up in government. The elite contractors and big corporations seem to desire to enslave everyone or make them dependent on them, that includes the pharmaceudical companies. Racism was not as bad of a problem ten years ago as it is today.

If I were still contracting, I would look at experience, reliability, and honesty to hire my workers, not color.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
I wonder just what it is about this expanded definition that seems to be raising hackles.

Funny. It doesn't raise mine. Maybe that's why the only star your post has drawn was from me.

And ... I'm a racist. Or, am I?

I can tell you with zero hesitation that Whites are smart and the most innovative. In the same breath, I can tell you the smartest man I ever met was black (and he was shocked when I said so in a very large meeting). I can tell you Asians do better on tests than White people. So much for 'smart'. I can tell you Latinos are the hardest working people on Earth. The laziest race of peoples have black skin and they always expect something to come from nothing. White people are a bunch of sheep (until the wolf shows up). Asians are even more sheepy.

Sorry. That's first-hand observation from a lifetime of traveling the world. What my eyes have seen is what they saw. I don't think they were deceived. You can tell me I'm wrong, but I know I'm not.

originally posted by: infolurker
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.

Funny. I didn't mention in my reply to Terry that The Most Racist countries I've ever visited were in Asia. Their hate on each other boils them down into tribalism BTW. And, they do hate on other tribes, when people of other colors aren't around. LMAO

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.

Why wouldn't white people have an issue with an organization redefining the word racism in order to deny the fact that white people can be the victims of racism?

a reply to: infolurker

I'm a white guy looking for a black woman to put on my supreme court.

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.

Do you enjoy sucking hyper sexualised African male sexual organs?

It only takes 30 seconds of critical thinking and comparing situations for these extremists to figure out how poor, and toxic, their logic is. They can't do so, precisely because they are ideologues.

originally posted by: dandandat2

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.

Why wouldn't white people have an issue with an organization redefining the word racism in order to deny the fact that white people can be the victims of racism?

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: infolurker
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.

Funny. I didn't mention in my reply to Terry that The Most Racist countries I've ever visited were in Asia. Their hate on each other boils them down into tribalism BTW. And, they do hate on other tribes, when people of other colors aren't around. LMAO

And China and Japan are extremely racist, explicitly so, against dark skinned people especially black people, but also darker skinned Asians.

a reply to: infolurker


The ADl does not own the English language.

Racism's definition is not the ADl's, it is that historically listed in dictionaries:
- "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group"


The ADl's new definition of racism is itself racist.

I wish dearly this was just the ADL's. This is the entire progressive movement's new definition, and it has been for almost 10 years, if not longer. I was debating this with my leftist friends in 2014. It has its roots in sociology a while back. These sources are saying it goes back as far as the 70's and 80's, but it hasn't gone mainstream as far as rank and file until about 10 years ago. If anything, ADL is late to the game.

en.wikipedia.org...

medium.com...

In 1970, Pat Bidol redefined racism when she wrote in Developing New Perspectives on Race that “racism = prejudice + power”. Judith H. Katz popularized the equation in White Awareness: Handbook for Anti-Racism Training. The theory is that everyone is prejudiced, but only white people can be racist because racism requires prejudice plus power, and people of color do not have power in a racist society.

psycnet.apa.org...

Racism equals power plus prejudice: A social psychological equation for racial oppression.

ChapterDatabase: APA PsycInfo
Operario, Don Fiske, Susan T.
Citation
Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. (1998). Racism equals power plus prejudice: A social psychological equation for racial oppression. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 33–53). Sage Publications, Inc.
Abstract
This chapter examines the role of power in sustaining all aspects of racism. Five core ideas guide this argument: (a) Societal power directs the construction of racial categories; (b) cognitive consequences of racial categories, such as stereotyping, underlie people's perception that these arbitrary categories are real and meaningful; (c) affective and evaluative consequences of racial categories, such as in-group favoritism, underlie people's biases against different categories; (d) power plus prejudice transforms universal psychological processes into asymmetrical societal processes; and, thus, (e) racism is a personal and societal challenge.
The discussion draws most heavily from basic social psychology research, but also briefly reviews some important messages from other disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, and history. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

nationalpost.com...

www.nas.org...

The twin themes “only whites can be racist” and “all whites are racist” appeared at the University of Delaware in 2007. The “sustainability” dorm-based indoctrination program at UD offered this aperҫu:

A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. ‘The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….’

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: infolurker


The ADl does not own the English language.

Racism's definition is not the ADl's, it is that historically listed in dictionaries:
- "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group"


The ADl's new definition of racism is itself racist.

Isn't making any reference to race, racism? If we are called the "human race", isn't that a racist statement?

Maybe we should look at the diversity of human attributes as "variations" or "variants" (like we do with the corona virus) or as "varieties" (like we do with our pets). Then any reference to these variations can have the same bad connotation as racism by calling it something like "variationism".

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Hecate666

It's not a load of crap. How were black people denied the vote when this country was founded. Was it based on race? No, it was based on a prevailing notion that black people were not human, only less then human. There is no racism involved if we consider ourselves better or higher than monkeys. White people considered themselves human and considered black people as monkeys. Denying that the US was built on the idea of white supremacy where white people could vote and black people could be owned is simply modern day baloney.

My step father is into history and archeology and when we were discussing Darwin and evolution, the missing link to be specific, he told me that the scientists back then like Darwin believed that they had the missing link between man and ape in the black man. So there was really no need to go looking for bones to prove that to them back in the day as they had living proof.

The idea of a human race is racist because there can always be sub-human races but nothing above the human race. This desire to categorize and make a value based hierarchy out of everything is the real problem.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

No doubt racism was alive and well in the 1800's, but Darwin I believe wrote that he didn't have the so called transitional species (between the hominid ancestors and modern humans) available yet, but he expected it to be found. I think he even stated that if it wasn't found it would invalidate his theories.

Did your stepfather know that Darwin actually asserted Black people were the transitional species, or is this theorizing on his part?