Here’s a rather interesting example of a racist race-activist attempting to make use of a blogger’s definition of “racism” to further his own agenda. An agenda that consists of portraying the left (the left being anyone who doesn’t agree with his definition of race) as an unreasonable, white race hating group of tree huggers (which sets up for his non-stop non-sequiturs used in his pseudo-science based pro-race activism).
The only problem is that the blog in question starts out by declaring that the 1960s definition of racism (racism=prejudice + power) is “the standard definition used in sociology” despite evidence to the contrary.
All one has to do is look at blogs by the likes of TheAngryBlackWoman or StanfordDaily to see that this definition’s accuracy is not only being brought into question but that other definitions of racism are becoming more generally accepted amongst professionals as can be seen in Doctor Lisa Cohen’s article in Psychology Today titled; “The Psychology of Prejudice and Racism” which starts out;
“How do we define prejudice and racism?” and goes on to say;
…Racism is a specific form of prejudice, involving prejudicial attitudes or behavior towards members of an ethnic group. The definition of race is somewhat variable but commonly refers to an ethnic group originating on a specific continent, such as people of African, European or Asian descent.
And this definitely doesn’t fit this alleged standard of; “racism=prejudice+power”.
But rather than acknowledge the gradual morphing of the definition of racism from the the 1960s definition (which was a product of the times) to what it is now and is becoming?
We get a distinctly politically pro-race activist approach to the definition of race which lacks anything reflecting present reality. An approach that is barely rooted in fact and totally lacking in reason and logic.
An approach that is absolutely rooted in appeal to emotion, selective use of fact and pandering.
But what do you expect from a person who can’t write or say the word “racism” without putting quotes around it (written, air or implied)?
This is why it’s important to be careful to first identify who you’re dealing with by examining the language, motive and methodology of the person or group in question when it comes to scientific or journalistic inquiry.
Because some people aren’t interested in knowledge or seeking truth.
They’re only interested in finding any way they can to advance their activism and pursue their political agenda, even if it means they’re joining ranks with those who actively prosecute the War on Knowing.
So be careful when engaging these types of activists and be sure to nail them down with accurate definition before their white horse even leaves the starting gate.