Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon
In the good ol' USA, the word "racialism" fell out of popularity with "racism" being substituted for it while maintaining its application for describing individuals as racists. The definition you presented seems to drop that application which, as Clod said, would preclude any individual from being called racist; unless, their whole cultural social structure exhibited the same behavior. This reeks of agenda. I don't buy it; but, I can see how it would appeal to a connoisseur of poppycock.
|
I agree and disagree.
I disagree because the definition of racism implies a social doctrine. Even though discrimination and racism are considered synonymous in our society, I would argue that there has to be some social structure behind a racist. This social structure does not have to be very severe, but I believe it has to exist.
I agree because I believe a person can be racist by attempting to promote a prejudice in society. If I somehow promote that Mongolians are lazy and try to get society to embrace that view, I would consider that racism because of the interaction with society. If you discriminate without promoting the behavior I would not consider that racism. It is semantics at this point but I think, for definition sake, they should be separate.
I think this addresses your point?