Mike Lorrey wrote,
> Frankly, I don't care what *current* dictionaries say a word means.
OK, I guess this discussion is over. You made a lot of good points in your
post (which I conveniently snipped :-). I don't have time or inclination to
discard the dictionary and debate new meanings for words.
I think we are agreed on what your definition is, what my definition is, and
what the dictionary's dictionary is. I don't think there is much value in
going further on that track.
I think we have wasted too much time on this. Let's assume that I concede
your definition for the sake of argument.
Now, what is the point of trying to define racism as genetic? If I were to
concede to your definition, what purpose would it serve? Under your
definition, we can now pre-judge blacks as having characteristics because of
their race. It would not be racist under your definition because it is not
genetically based. Under your definition, we can no discriminate blacks by
reference to their race. It would not be racist under your definition
because it is not genetically based.
Where does this lead us? Are we now free to practice racial prejudice,
discrimination and profiling because it is not racist? Should we start
evaluating people on the basis of racial groupings instead of individual
merits? Should any policy, strategy, law, or philosophy treat people of
different races differently? Ignoring the terminology of whether these
actions are "racist" or not, are you arguing that they represent good
science, good politics, good strategy?
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:07 MDT