racism has nothing to do with ‘systematic oppression’
it’s literally being one race and hating another. That’s it.
Stop saying reverse racism doesn’t exist.
Lmfao there are so many things wrong and your level of stupidity amazes way too much for me to even want to educate you.
I’ve yet to hear a proper argument that isn’t along the lines of “systematic oppression is the only kind of racism rabble rabble rabble” so please enlighten me with something that isn’t complete horse shit.
oh, and if I hear another argument about ‘old white people writing the dictionary definition” i’m going to light a church on fire.
Ok first of all your mistake was searching for a google/ dictionary definition of racism. The dictionary is in no way the authority on correct definitions for many a reasons. Firstly because it does not seek to delve into the deeper contextual meanings of words but rather give a some what vague non-prescriptivist account of everyday words. The definition or racism it supplies is what is commonly used in everyday language but is not necessarily the correct academic understanding of what racism is.
The criticism of the dictionary being written by old white men although may seem absurd to you, it is a sufficiently and academic means of criticising the dictionary. This criticism is used in English language and literature and any one with sufficient knowledge in each of these areas would tell you that language and the use of dictionaries has long been a means of exerting power and control over others as well as conflating the interests of people in social power, or as we would say White CisHet Males. That is the reason why dictionaries aren’t taken as the be all end all of meaning.
As Vygotsky aims to hammer down, meaning isn’t finite and meaning develops with use, your current understanding of what racism is is basic at best and the only way in which you will have a greater understanding of the underpinning of what is meant by racism outside of your wrongful casual use of it is through the study of racial theory which aim to focus specifically on the ways in which racism works. Your simple googling ‘define racism’ is laughable because it in no way means you have any understanding of racism at all other than a vague open description of racist behaviour with a very simplistic illustration which is probably like 5% of the way in which racism works but is the most commonly visible form.
Now if we want to move on to the way in which racism is defined by academics who specialise in racial theory and not arbitrary internet definitions we may learn something about what is really meant by racism from people who study it to s specialised degree.
Marables (1992) ‘a system of ignorance, exploitation and power used to oppress…on the basis of ethnicity, culture, mannerisms and colour’
Banks (1995), ‘an examinationof U.S. history reveals that the “color line” of race is a socially constructed category,created to differentiate racial groups and to show the superiority or dominance of one race-in particular, Whites-over others.’
Bush (2004) ‘racism reveals the ways in which Whites benefit from a variety of institutional and social arrangements that often appear (to Whites) to have nothing to do with race’
‘the critical project that largely informs the new scholarship on “whiteness” rests on a singular assumption. Its primary aim is to unveil the rhetorical, political, cultural, and social mechanisms through which “whiteness” is both invented and used to mask its power and privilege.’ (Giroux 1997: 102)
Leonardo (2004) ‘[Whites] set up a system that benefits the group, mystify the system, remove the agents of actions from discourse, and when interrogated about it, stifle the discussion with inane comments about the “reality” of the charges being made’
Now all the definitions of racism above are made by academics. Academics who study race theory and have done so for decades, these are academics with specialised knowledge on racism and the way in which race is constructed within our societies.But I bet their definitions which actually explore the in depth intricacies of race and racism are completely invalid because tumblr user theelifeandtimes knows how to google.
Now in order to see how valid said tumblr users approach is I decided to google a definition of another word. Car we all know what a car is we all use the word car in our everyday language but does that all of a sudden mean we actually understand the critical underpinnings of what constitutes a car? According to google;carkɑː/noun
- a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal-combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people."we’re going by car”
- the passenger compartment of a lift, cableway, or balloon."he was in the lift when the car stuck"
- Why thank you google I know now everything there is to know about all types of cars and the different ways in which they work. By this simplistic and vague description of what constitues a car I’m going to go tell my neighbour that his electric car isn’t actually a car trololololol. I am also going to tell my dad not to put petrol in his car because google definition didn’t say anything about putting petrol in a car so I guess cars don’t need petrol. You see how stupid my statements are they are almost identical to what you said.
I bet you havent even heard of critical race theory but yes of course you person on internet who doesn’t study sociology, specifically racial sociology know everything because you has google and me pursuing degree in education I is full of horse shit.
if the other half was illuminated, it would be just as interesting. BRO FOOD