T.S. Eliot was talking poetry, not politics, when he referred to "the intolerable wrestle of words and meaning," but lately I've noticed several words being body-slammed and smacked with folding chairs until they would be begging for mercy if they were people instead of, you know, words.

My newsaper column is about redefining words -- three in particular: "racism," "liberal," and "hate." Much of this has been discussed at local blogs of late...

One newly redefined word is "hate," as in, "liberals hate the president"...It's a propaganda move of brutish efficiency, a way of writing off as irrational anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how detailed and unemotional their argument.

What are you trying to say?

by Edward Cone
News & Record
2-19-06

T.S. Eliot was talking poetry, not politics, when he referred to "the intolerable wrestle of words and meaning," but lately I've noticed several words being body-slammed and smacked with folding chairs until they would be begging for mercy if they were people instead of, you know, words. Folks attach meanings that would befuddle Webster to words with pretty clear definitions, and they do it with an agenda in mind.

One word that has taken a beating around here lately is "racism." It started when Rhinoceros Times editor John Hammer attributed some inflammatory remarks about all white people learning racism from their parents to City Councilwoman Goldie Wells. Wells subsequently told Hammer that she had not said that (she also told me that she does not hold this view), and John wrote a thoughtful second column in his paper about the way different perspectives influence our perceptions of bias on any number of issues.

While all this was playing out, a parallel conversation was under way in the comment section of David Hoggard's Web log, Hogg's Blog. Some folks -- clearly smart and well-intentioned -- argued that "racism" and "racist" can be applied to all white people, even those without overt prejudice or a history of misbehavior toward blacks, as long as we live in a society where the legacy of our racist past persists in even subtle ways. I found this redefinition of "racism" unsatisfying, not because I doubt the problems it identifies but because it unmoors the term from its harsh reality, absolves actual racists of their malevolence, and weakens a strong word beyond recognition.

Hoggard says this recasting of racism is pushed by consultants and high-dollar workshops, and a commenter at his site notes that one such series has been foisted upon employees of the Guilford County Schools. That doesn't mean everyone who buys the newspeak is in it for the money or political advantage, but it does indicate that there may be goals beyond clarity of communication and social justice in the revised definition.

Another word that has been mauled for the sake of politics is "liberal," which in the Age of Limbaugh tends to mean "a person more liberal than the person using the word at that moment," or in policy terms, "anything bad." Thus to conservatives, the world is full of liberals -- even other conservatives get hit with the L-word when they step out of line, as was pointed out recently by blogger Glenn Greenwald -- while liberals who should be proud of the term flee from it as if it were radioactive.

I saw how effective this political wordsmithing has been at another local blog, Chosen Fast, where the writer recently took pains to say she was no liberal. She did say, though, that she supports things like minimum-wage laws and government benefit programs -- and she seemed genuinely surprised to find out that such things are at the very heart of "liberal" politics in this country.

One newly redefined word is "hate," as in, "liberals hate the president." You've seen it in letters to the editor, you hear it on talk radio and Fox News. It's a propaganda move of brutish efficiency, a way of writing off as irrational anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how detailed and unemotional their argument. If you oppose the war in Iraq, or decry the mishandling of Katrina, or put forth a meticulous financial case that the White House plan for Social Security is the wrong answer to a tough question, well, you just "hate the president," so there's no need for further discussion.

Here's the thing: I don't think most of the 60-odd percent of the public who rate Bush poorly in opinion polls "hate" the president, they just don't think he's doing a very good job in some important areas. I know that I don't have a lot of room in my life for hatred, especially of people I don't actually know, although I do get a little worked up over word abuse.

Words have meanings. You can't just spray them randomly, like Dick Cheney firing birdshot at his friends -- unless, of course, accuracy is not what you are aiming for in the first place.

Edward Cone (www.edcone.com, efcone@mindspring.com) writes a column for the News & Record most Sundays.

Comments

[Joel Gillespie]

Ed, I am reading you stuff almost every day now. But don't worry. I am not Kathy Bates! I thought this was an interesting and thought-provoking piece. Two notes...First, there may be various levels why ChosenFast may not wish to claim the moniker "liberal." It is not just a “loaded” word, but a word that has some objective meaning theologically. It may have come to have an objective meaning in terms of social policy, which means it may not be just a word to throw at others or to avoid having thrown at you. Second, your very last comment about Cheney, though cute, and kind of funny, seemed a little gratuitous, and maybe of a spirit that you were writing against. At least it seemed that way to me. Seemed like a dig. For what?

[Ed Cone]

Topical humor is a staple of opinion writing, and Cheney jokes have been everywhere for the last week, from Letterman to the White House staff. I'm a little late to the party, writing on Sunday. I'm no fan of Cheney, but I wouldn't get to exercised about it, any more than my Gore-invented-the-Internet crack in a blog post last week.

I understand that "liberal" theology has its own definition, but we were talking politics and social policy -- it strikes me as a perfect example of the redefinition of the word.

[Bubba]

"One newly redefined word is 'hate," as in, "liberals hate the president.'"

And wouldn't you know it, someone has already used that partticular little definition to it's opposite effect on one of our local blogs!

Imagine that!

[Ed Cone]

Bubba -- what? I sincerely do not understand what you are trying to say in this comment -- could you rephrase it? Thnx

[Cara Michele]

"Conservatives view social patterns such as marriage, religion, gender roles, etc., as the result of many thousands of years of human development. These patterns of life represent the accumulated wisdom of past generations, conservatives say, and should not be casually thrown aside... Liberals view society as something that can be easily reshaped to meet changing conditions. They believe that many existing social patterns, including marriage, gender roles, and race relations are severely flawed and unfair."

Ed, this is what I'm thinking of when I think of conservative and liberal, and why I say I'm not a liberal. I identify with that definition of conservative and reject the idea that traditional marriage and gender roles are flawed.

As for the economics and the politics and the rest of it, argue all you want about it -- without me. ;)

Source

And P.S., I was really shocked by the Cheney comment. I would not have expected it of you. :(

[Cara Michele]

Let me ad a caveat, if I may. Race is not mentioned under the conservative definition I referenced, but it is under the liberal. I am a strong believer in racial reconciliation and anti-racism, and that is part of my conservative theological tradition, as well. And it is in the context of my conservative faith that I have been involved with racial reconciliation work, so I would consider that to be a conservative quality, as well.

[Ed Cone]

What a ludicrous and incomplete definition of "conservative" and "liberal" -- and one that has nothing to do with government's role in poverty programs and the larger economy, which is what we were discussing. You prove the point of the column -- people throw around terms without regard to their actual meanings.

I've been happily married for almost 17 years, obviously I find traditional marriage a positive and workable relationship for me and my family. But definitions of gender and family roles have changed repeatedly over the centuries -- e.g., my wife is not my property under law -- and that's not a liberal or conservative statement, it's a statement of fact.

As for "believ(ing) that many existing social patterns, including marriage, gender roles, and race relations are severely flawed and unfair", well, yes -- and again, I'd be suprised if you didn't agree with this. Race relations are still a problem in our society, and other "liberalizing" changes that we now take for granted, such as women being able to vote or have careers, are relatively recent shifts in our culture, and are not yet realities in much of the world.

Re Cheney: send your postcard to Scott McClellan, White House press secretary who wore an orange tie last week to joke about the hunting accident.

[Ed Cone]

Our comments crossed -- am delighted to learn that racial reconciliation is now part of the conservative agenda -- be sure to study the history of US race relations since 1960 to see why this is a welcome change (e.g. JFK, MLK, LBJ, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms and Trent Lott) and certainly not a widely-held interpretation of political or religious conservative thought in American politics.

[Ed Cone]

PS

Michele -- please don't be put off by my tone. This is what I do here -- language and politics.

I welcome you to the conversation, but it is a little rough and tumble.

I hope you know how much I value what you do, in your work and as a blogger -- it's more important that what I do in either realm.

I mean what I say about the politics and the language, and I think that stuff matters -- but forgive me if I express myself poorly, I want to welcome debate and discussion, not shout it down.

Peace.

EC

[Joel Gillespie]

I'm not excercised about the crack on Cheney. It's just that it came off mean spirited and seemed to weaken the case you were making. About "liberal" and Cara Michele, since I was a member of that elite group of individuals named by Mr. Guarino () as one of the growing number of conservative bloggers, and did follow that thread closely (I don't like labels myself but I'd rather be called a conservative than a liberal!), the definition used was pretty nebulous. I believe he referred to CaraMichele as a “social conservative.” There are reasons to distance oneself from the moniker "liberal" without at the same time throwing the word around as a swear word. From a political, theological, or social perspective I don’t want the word hanging around my head. Not that I want the other word either...

[Chewie]

Ed, Spirit of SpiritBlog has pointed out one problem with constricting the word "racism" to an extremely narrow definition. I'd like to offer another.

You state that you find a broader use of the word racism "unsatisfying", because "it unmoors the term from its harsh reality, absolves actual racists of their malevolence, and weakens a strong word beyond recognition."

Consider what it would take to come to a universal standard for identifying who is an "actual racist". How racist must their views be? Must they bear equal malevolence towards all races, or is one enough? What if a person makes racist remarks, but acts in ways quite charitable towards all? What if the reverse is true? Are words or deeds the key characteristic? If someone says that all white people are racist, are they, then, racist? Do you just know 'em when you see 'em? How should the rest of us proceed?

In other words what would it take, in your rubric, to call someone "racist", or to say there is "racism", and be accurate? Could you ennumerate the qualities prerequisite to such a label? And must we all, then, come to an agreement on this definition before we may use such nomenclature in a public forum without reproach? Whose permission must I seek, or S.O.P. should I consult, before I pointed to something and called it racism or racist?

I'm not looking to restart the debate at Hogg's, but your column left this question dangling, in my view. If you care to engage it, consider the following when you talk about "actual racists".

David Duke answers an email about whether he is a racist:

"Do I think of myself as a racist? Absolutely not. It is because the connotation of the word means racial hatred or endorsing racial supremacy, neither of which is my view.

I am however a racial realist. I understand that there are intrinsic differences between peoples and that those differences have profound effects on society. I also believe all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage."

KKK Imperial Wizard Virgil Griffin, speaking at the Greensboro Truth & Reconciliation Commission public hearings:

"The black race I feel should be proud of their race, the whites proud of their race, and stay that way. I don’t hate anyone. We don’t teach our children to hate anyone, but to respect ‘em. And that’s it."

Actual racists? They don't think so. What do you think? What's your benchmark? Where's the tipping point?

[bubba]

"Bubba -- what? I sincerely do not understand what you are trying to say in this comment -- could you rephrase it? Thnx "

One of our esteemed contributors to the local blogging scene already used the quote's basic premise in a not-so-tongue-in-cheek reverse way at The Chairman's Corner. It was said in support of another one of our esteeemed contributors to the local blogging scene.

I suspect it all has to do with some basic political value differences from the ones I hold, and the perceptions that result from those values.

[Ed Cone]

I saw it over at Kindley's place. He was yanking your chain. Lighten up, sweetheart.

[Ed Cone]

Chewie, the fact that there are obvious racists who deny being racists does not make all white people racists. Yes, actions speak louder than words. If you lead an organization with a history of violent action in support of "white supremacy," who cares what you say about being a racist or not? Reductio ad absurdam, this is.

[Chewie]

The examples of David Duke and Virgil Griffin weren't to suggest anything about white people in general -- a point which I know you are smart enough to discern, and chose instead to twist.

If you'd like to see a standard set for using the terms "racist" and "racism", you should follow with a suggested standard. You didn't. We are left to read your mind. The obscure notion of "a history of misbehavior toward blacks" doesn't help us in the minefield of today's race relations.

There are many who will applaud your reticence to use those words, and among them are precisely the people who may have earned them, yet are protected by your willingness to keep us forever in semantics.

[Ed Cone]

Chewie, I didn't mean to twist anything -- you're trotting out David Duke, I think that's just a little provocative, huh?

We're not arguing about the proper definition of a neologism. Racism has a meaning:

"1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.Discrimination or prejudice based on race."

So does racist: "a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others."

You want to argue that the inarguable persistence of racism and its consequences in our culture means that all of the members of our culture's historically dominant group are "racists?" Fine.

But I think broadening the definitions to the extent you suggest is confusing and counterproductive. The terms are rightly heavy with negative meaning -- to attach them to such a broad group of people means getting rid of some of that negative meaning, or misusing the words.

[Chewie]

"You want to argue that the inarguable persistence of racism and its consequences in our culture means that all of the members of our culture's historically dominant group are "racists?" Fine.

But I think broadening the definitions to the extent you suggest is confusing and counterproductive."

I made no such argument, and no such suggestion. You are debating someone who is not in the room, and a topic that is not on the table.

I'm asking you how you determine whether racism is present, and whether someone is a racist. Other than the dictionary definitions, you offer no insight as to those value judgments.

Is Billy Yow a racist? How about Skip Alston? What is your basis for making that assessment?

A paternalistic attitude, coupled with charitable acts and intentions: any racism present there?

My friend slips and makes a racist remark during rush-hour gridlock. She does it once; or she does it frequently. Is she a racist? Must I weigh her attitudes and actions in sums and percentages before I know the answer?

The dictionary definition is pretty, but not helpful today, when racism is always carefully cloaked. David Duke does not believe he is a racist; you believe he is. I want you to say that you believe this because the consequences of his actions outweigh his words, or some such thing -- whatever it is that you believe. Duke is an easy call, which is why I brought him up. I thought it would present an opportunity for you to add some clarity to what you left unresolved; instead, it seems to have caused a defensive reflex.

Like the dictionary, your objection is unhelpful to combatting racism in all its forms and guises -- though I know it is with a commitment to that battle that you offer it.

[Ed Cone]

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the topic I wrote about in my column today: the (in)accuracy of defining all white people as "racists."

[Chewie]

And I asked you to outline a definition you consider more accurate. I have my own views, which I did not put forth as argument nor as suggestion. You put me in a Duke blue shirt and called me the opposing team, which was not supported by the words I typed on the page.

[Ed Cone]

Again, I'm sorry if I misread your remarks.

I've said many times, including in this thread, that I'm comfortable with the existing definitions of the terms "racism" and "racist." So when you continue to ask for a definition I consider "more accurate," I'm at a loss.

The fact that a racist like Duke says he isn't a racist doesn't mean the definition has to change, it means Duke is a liar. Why does he lie? Because the word is powerful in our culture, as it should be.

[Chewie]

It is powerful, to the extent that no one will claim it, not even white supremacists like Duke. We have Klan wizards stating that they don't hate anyone; and we have many, many cases where it is not so obvious that people may be lying.

That leaves us with the daunting prospect of deciding who and what is racist, and no agreed-upon means to do so. You believe David Duke qualifies. He believes he does not. He would ask you why you think he is a racist, when he thinks he is not. The answer you would give him is the answer I was hoping to hear.

I believe we are unable to apply the term, ever, without it being denied, disowned, and rejected outright, which is no reliable indicator as to its merit. I offered two local examples, Yow and Alston, which remain in contention, depending on whom you ask.

It doesn't have to get personal, but it's important that we are able to talk about racism and racists that fall short of Duke and the Klan. Those cloaked and muddied gray areas are where today's greatest challenges in race relations lie. If we must remain dictionary-precise, unable to address fuzziness, leanings, historical vestiges or cultural bias, we are not going to be able to talk about our current problems, much less work to resolve them.

[Ed Cone]

You keep mentioning Duke's denial as if there was some lesson in it beyond the the politcal negatives associated with being known as a racist. I see no such lesson. You say Duke believes he does not qualify as a racist. I doubt very seriously that he believes that, nor is it relevant if he does -- he is the leader (or past leader) of an organization that is objectively racist by the strictest definitions. I really don't see why this is part of the conversation.

What about people who do not believe in superiority or inferiority based on race, or support political divisions on race etc? The original point of discussion was, Are they racists anyway, no matter what, because they live in a culture still dealing with active and historical racism? My answer to that remains, No.

You ask about the shades of gray, the common prejudices and stereotypes that persist even in well-meaning people who would not consider themselves racists, and who do not take actions that belief that self-description. I would say those people would tend not to be racists. Do they exist in some pure state, untainted by racism in thought and deed? No. But if racist means something, they are not racists.

[Chewie]

I understand that you want to reserve the word for blatant hate and notions of racial superiority, of which there are far scarier examples than David Duke.

But that is letting the majority of the country's population -- and an awful lot of garden variety racism -- off the hook. Equating racism with extremism effectively stifles conversation about its presence in our everyday lives -- and it's something that we desperately need to talk about in this country in order for the grand democratic idea to thrive.

The lesson of Duke is that even he will not accept the label. He knows how to dodge your dictionary, too; he specifically states that he is not a race supremacist.

He's lying, you say, because his organization is "objectively racist by the strictest definitions." No disagreement from me, but it isn't objective; it's subjective. And whose word would be final on that is not at all clear.

I'm asking you to take the same test you are applying to Duke -- he's lying because I know he's a racist -- and see if it holds up when you apply to someone less clear-cut: an elected official, a celebrity, a friend. You can't read their hearts or minds, and yet you want to say that you know who is a racist and who is not because you can apply a dictionary test -- a test that surely, anyone behaving even slightly better than David Duke will deny more vehemently than he. They will say they do not believe in the supremacy of their race -- and you will not know if they are telling the truth or not. Who's a racist? And who gets to decide?

By your strict definition, the average good ol' boy who says what he really thinks about "them" when he's in like company has license to take offense -- loudly -- if someone calls him a racist. You've made the term too horrible to be applied to anyone who generally, to themselves and others, seems a good human being.

In essence, your effect is opposite from your intentions. Your narrow definition of racism would only indict those who welcome such an indictment, and lets the vast expanse of racist behaviors, attitudes, and systems in this country off with a clean conscience. It also has the effect of putting the burden of proof on those aggrieved, those least likely to be listened to, and gives them no standard of proof they can meet. It calls for a fluid, subjective judgment -- knowing someone's true beliefs, specifically the kind that they know they must keep hidden from view -- that can not be raised without lots of people taking blanket personal offense and demanding apologies, a la the Goldie Wells story. It creates the impossibility of discourse.

I also believe there is a difference, in today's usage, between calling someone "a racist" and saying that they or their words or actions are "racist". That's an important distinction when it comes to diffusing knee-jerk "I'm not a racist" reactions. People of all races often take it personally when it is not being offered up in a personal way, but is meant in service of a larger truth.

It matters little what accord you and I could reach on this, so I hope that others will offer their thoughts as well.

[Roch101]

Chewie, are you a racist?

[Ed Cone]

Chewie: I understand that you want to reserve the word for blatant hate and notions of racial superiority

If by "want to reserve" you mean "continue to apply the standard definition," that is correct, although it doesn't have to be "blatant." There are silent racists.

Equating racism with extremism effectively stifles conversation about its presence in our everyday lives. No, this is simply untrue. We can talk about the evils of violence against women without saying every man is a misogynist or wife-beater.

Your statement also slides past the point I was making -- that it is incorrect to call a person a "racist" because they are white and live in a culture with persistent racial issues. If I'm a racist and you are a racist, what is Virgil Griffin? You need a new word for him, because we have radically different worldviews on race. "Racist" has done well in describing his worldview -- I think the challenge is to come up with a word for the rest of us.

The lesson of Duke is that even he will not accept the label. He knows how to dodge your dictionary, too; he specifically states that he is not a race supremacist.Again, who cares? His stated goals and documented actions are racist by any reasonable definition.

you want to say that you know who is a racist and who is not because you can apply a dictionary test
I make no such claim. Some people are overt racists. Others are covert racists. I don't pretend to read the hearts of all people -- but I'm sure that the solution is not to cast a blanket condemnation across all of them.

By your strict definition, the average good ol' boy who says what he really thinks about "them" when he's in like company has license to take offense -- loudly -- if someone calls him a racist. Why does he (this casual stereotype of yours) have such license, and who cares about a false denial? If someone espouses racist principles, but denies them in another venue, they've still espoused them.

You've made the term too horrible to be applied to anyone who generally, to themselves and others, seems a good human being. No, I did not define the word "racist," it predates me by a long margin. You are the one who is advocating new definitions. Which is fine, advocate away, but you have not answered the question: If "racist" covers people who do not meet the dictionary definition, then what do we call the people who do? Isn't there an important distinction to be made between the two camps? Please answer these two questions directly.

It calls for a fluid, subjective judgment -- knowing someone's true beliefs, specifically the kind that they know they must keep hidden from view Actions speak louder than words. And if the alternative to fluid judgment is blanket description so broad as to be meaningless, I'll go with the former.

It creates the impossibility of discourse.Exactly wrong -- it creates the POSSIBILITY of discourse.

I also believe there is a difference, in today's usage, between calling someone "a racist" and saying that they or their words or actions are "racist". At last we are making some progress. I would go further than that and say words or actions can draw on racist attitudes and histories with bespeaking active racism by the perpetrator.

It's a good thing that being called a racist is anathema in our society. To move the goalposts and redefine the word sets back that progress, because if everyone is a racist then nobody is a racist.

[PotatoStew]

Chewie:

"It creates the impossibility of discourse."

This applies at least equally to your definition of racism, as evidenced by two very lengthy and contentious threads (this one and the one at Hoggard's) in which the discourse hasn't really even moved past the definition of the word. How does that help solve any problems?

Ed:

"if everyone is a racist then nobody is a racist."

Have you been watching "The Incredibles"?

"And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that *everyone* can have powers. *Everyone* can be Super! And when everyone's Super... no one will be."

[Mr. Sun]

Stop using loaded words like "racist" as judgments of whole, complex people. Instead, focus on individual behaviors. Wrapping individuals in blanket generalities is choosing to be stupid. Is Chief Wray a racist? Is David Duke a racist? Is Skip Alston a racist? I refuse to waste my time wrapping them up in a bow to put on a shelf. Tell me about the complexities of the underlying issue and let's try to do what is right.

[Jim Caserta]

About 1/2 way through the comments, I thought, "Why does 'racism' have to involve hate? That definition ignores many forms of discrimination. It took until Chewie's last comment to get someone touching on that. A person in America is far less likely to get assaulted because of their skin color than they are to get denied for a loan, rejected for a job, or passed over for a promotion. To me, those are prevalent reminders that racism still exists in America today. This is especially true when you broaden the definition of minority from just skin color to English speaking ability, or immigration status. Is agreeing on a dictionary definition of racism as important as finding common ground for what type of society we want, and what we have to do to get there?

As for me, I'm proud to call myself a liberal, for believing in strong social programs, public schools, minimum wage, etc., and for the idea that the government shouldn't tell you how to live your life.

[Ed Cone]

Jim, I agree with what you say -- we have real problems to solve here, including many that involve racism or the legacy of racism. I think that telling people who are interested in solving those problems that they are racists is counterproductive, and inaccurate.

[Chewie]

Roch, it's hard for me to imagine any scenario in which it would be useful or true to point to someone and say "you are a racist" -- for two main reasons.

One, it is such a divisive and controversial epithet to hurl at someone, that its end result is never a productive discussion.

Two, I have never met anyone whose total being and personhood is addressed by such a label. No one is just "a racist" and nothing else, and no one is "a racist" every moment of every day. People have the capacity to think and learn and change.

Take the example of Gorrell Pierce, who spoke at the TRC hearings. He used to be a Klansman. Is he "a racist"? No? At what precise moment did he stop being "a racist"? One millisecond it was true, the next millisecond it was not? That's a ridiculous distinction to have to make.

But do I believe we are all racist? Yes. And that's not exclusively the province of whites or Americans, but reaches far back in human history. We all have an affinity, a preference, for those who are like us that can extend to a sense of who is better than who. It's part of the self-love and egoism of being human. It's not an admirable or particularly moral trait, but it's ancient and obvious.

Do we work to overcome it by monitoring how we think, what we say and do, what we ingest intellectually? Yep.

I don't take it personally when someone wants to talk about racism. It's a fact of life on the planet, and if you think it's a bad thing, the first thing you must do is acknowledge that it exists -- not just in extremistville where people wear swastikas on their arms, but everywhere there are communities of human beings who have long regarded other tribes and groups with suspicion and derision.

Hope that answers your needlessly smart-ass question.

[Roch101]

Chewie, a clue that you're not thinking clearly on this is your self-contradiction. First your contention is that there is no meaning in calling somebody a racist, that a racist can't be identified because there is no empirical measurement (misogynist, chauvinist, ideologue, satirist, environmentalist... lots of words also have no quantitative measure yet still have significant meaning, by the way), then your assertion is that we are all racists. Gorrell Pierce, racist? "No," you tell us. All of us racists, even non-whites? "Yes," you tell us. That's simply illogical. (A is not a C. A is a subset of B. All Bs are Cs. A must be a C - ERROR. ERROR. ERROR.) The word either has some inherent meaning or it doesn't. If Pierce is not, then we cannot all be. The only way that can happen is if racist doesn't mean racist in one of your instances.

I wish you would contemplate the appeals made to you to consider that you sap the word of any meaning if your definition concludes that we are all racists. Racist is not synonymous with human.

As for discussing racism, who said anything about taking it personally when someone wants to talk about it? Aren't you reaching a bit? I take offense when someone wants to talk about racism by defining me as racist, but lacking that, I'm eager to talk about it.

(All of the above with the love and respect you deserve. A debate among good friends as far as I'm concerned.)

[Chewie]

As far as I'm concerned, too, Roch.

You missed the question mark after "No" in the paragraph about Gorrell Pierce. In this case, "no" didn't mean "I don't think he is", it was "No?", meaning, "you don't think he is? Then consider this." Perhaps I should have added "if not, then..." to the next sentence. Without that question mark, I can see where you would think I was rendering judgment on whether he is or isn't a racist -- something I stated clearly that I see absolutely no point in doing -- and where there would be a contradiction. Just read it again, a little more closely.

If you're not racist, but want to talk about racism, who is it you want to talk about? That abstract group of haters that we all agree are loathsome human beings? Have you ever met one? Is Virgil Griffin one? Steve Arnold? Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? Gorrell Pierce? David Wray? Lt. Hinson? Your next door neighbor? I'm asking you, and Ed, to say how you know when someone is a racist, because you clearly want to separate those who are from those who aren't. Neither of you can tell me how you make a call about who belongs in what camp -- you just want to say you knows 'em when you sees 'em, and the rest of us will have to accept your judgment. That leave us with no common foundation to talk about racism. Your idea of it is so foggy and obtuse that it really doesn't apply to anyone, ever. Even David Duke knows how to wriggle out of it.

As for taking it personally, that is exactly what you, Ed, Hoggard, Sean, and Jay did when you heard that Goldie Wells had stated an opinion. So for you now to claim that you don't take it personally -- well, it really sounds like you're not listening to yourself as closely as others are. The collective white male knee-jerk was really quite astonishing. I know you all as individuals, and expected a wider spectrum of thoughtful responses.

I'm going to bow out now, as I've more than had my say on the topic.

[Ed Cone]

Racists as I define them are not an abstract group, Chewie, they are people who speak and act in ways that meet some fairly clear criteria -- belief and action based on the idea of the superiority/inferiority of different races, and the political or structural means of codifying and enforcing such divisions.

It is your definition that is abstract.

I'm still waiting, after asking directly several times, for an answer to the question: if we're all racists, what's David Duke, or some less famous and dangerous person with overt views and actions that anyone (except a PR conscious Klansman in public) would consider racist?

Also, I don't think "we all agree" that all racists are either "haters" or even entirely "loathsome human beings."

Of course Virgil Griffin is a racist, why do you keep asking that question?

"Neither of you can tell me how you make a call about who belongs in what camp -- you just want to say you knows 'em when you sees 'em, and the rest of us will have to accept your judgment."

Nope.

I've said many times what puts someone in that camp. Also, I'm not saying you have to accept my judgment -- I'm explaining myself in hopes of being clear, and establishing some common ground, but you are free to make decisions on your own.

This statement is bizarre: "Your idea of it is so foggy and obtuse that it really doesn't apply to anyone, ever. Even David Duke knows how to wriggle out of it."

Again, you are saying that when an active and overt racist says he's not a racist, that means he's not a racist. Nonsense.

And you are advocating a definition that is foggy -- everyone is a racist. I'll ask again, for the second time in this comment alone -- if everyone is a racist, what is the word for active, vocal, politcally motivated people who try to divide society on race?

Nice play of the white male card on your way out the door.

[Roch101]

It does no good to put words in people's mouths. You implied people take it personally when asked to talk about race. No, I don't. But I do take it personally when someone wants to begin that conversation by telling me I'm a racist. There's a distinction, please don't ignore it.

As for a definition, a racist is one who believes "that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." (Merriam-Webster) That sounds about right.

How do we know who is a racist? As Ed suggested, through people's actions and words. Can people deny it and hide it? Sure. Is it a precise term? No. Do denials or a lack of a precise quanitfier mean that we don't need a word to describe the above definition? No, we do need a word to describe the above and yes, I've met people deserving of the label "racist" by that definition. I'm not incapable of a value judgement on this matter. It concerns me that you aren't.

Once again you contradict yourself. Because you find the term difficult to apply, you conclude that it is so obtuse as to not apply to anyone, "ever." Yet, you have already applied it to everyone, always. That simply cannot be. You've dug yourself into a logic hole and the only ways out are to admint that racism has some meaning that can indeed be applied to individuals or that it is indeed so obtuse as to never have any meaning and therefore, what you are applying to everybody is something other than racism.

I'd suggest we allow racism to have its meaning and consdier that what you really want to discuss are, perhaps, bigotry, prejudice, racial discrimination or cultural biases.

[Roch101]

Correction to above: "It concerns me that you aren't," should have been "it concerns me that you are [incapable of making a value judgment]"

[Chewie]

I mentioned earlier that there is a distinction between someone being "racist" and being "a racist". You seemed to agree with the concept there.

I also mentioned that I see no point in pointing a finger at anyone and calling them "a racist". It's never the whole truth, and it's counterproductive.

I never said "everyone is a racist". I never said I am a racist, you are a racist, Virgil Griffin is a racist. Never said it. Don't believe it. Think it's a ridiculous, frivolous game of bogeymen. I can't think of a single word I would use to describe David Duke. I don't know the man. I might try "sick", but to think that there is a label or category he fits under is, as I said, ridiculous. He's complex like everyone else, and I don't understand him.

I do, however, have a word for his views: They're racist, and it's racism, in its most extreme, violent, but easy to combat form -- the kind that is out front and in your face.

Other kinds of racism, harder to combat because well-meaning Americans like to claim that we did away with it in the 60's, also exist. Other views, some deliberately disguised and some subconsciously held, are also racist. This is the bigger challenge. If you don't believe me, ask someone who faces racial discrimination on a daily basis. Who is the bigger threat to equality, the Klansman in a robe or the white person who's sick and tired of affirmative action?

As to the comments at Hogg's: I didn't play any cards. You all responded homogenously in a way that surprised a lot of people. I am one of them, and perhaps the first to bring it to your attention. It was an odd occurrence; you are all white males, and you all took personal offense. The white females who responded had very different reactions. It may be a coincidence, but it didn't look like one to me or lots of other people. If you have another explanation, I'm listening.

Nice attempt to encourage others to dismiss my opinions by alleging that I "played a card", though. Seems like that accusation is all too common these days.

[Chewie]

Obviously, the above was a response to Ed, not Roch.

[Joel Gillespie]

Nice to see someone else other than me called a smart ass :)

Great thread. I am going to print it and study it. Can't get this at your local news stand. Joel.

[Chewie]

"Because you find the term difficult to apply, you conclude that it is so obtuse as to not apply to anyone, 'ever.' Yet, you have already applied it to everyone, always."

Roch, I stated that I find yours and Ed's definition so obtuse as to not apply to anyone, ever. That's precisely my objection to it.

Please read more carefully. I don't think you're doing this deliberately, but that's the second time you've twisted what I said 180 degrees.

[Mr. Sun]

"It was an odd occurrence; you are all white males, and you all took personal offense. The white females who responded had very different reactions. It may be a coincidence, but it didn't look like one to me or lots of other people. If you have another explanation, I'm listening."

It's probably that you women got hysterical over it, due to your period or something you saw on Lifetime most likely.

[Roch101]

Roch, I stated that I find yours and Ed's definition so obtuse as to not apply to anyone, ever. That's precisely my objection to it.

You find this obtuse?

"Race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

Seems pretty clear to me and it's disheartening that you would rather dismiss that definition, and turn away from using it where it applies, in favor of some definition where those who hold those beliefs become indistinguishable from those who don't.

[Ed Cone]

Chewie, 3:02 PM: "The collective white male knee-jerk was really quite astonishing."

I'd say that's playing a card.

You say I took offense at Hogg's blog. I was not offended. I disagreed with the alleged comment from Councilwoman Wells that all white people learn from their parents to judge people by the color of the skin.

In the comments to that original post, JW said that "the only honest answer" the question, "Are you a racist?" is "yes. I am a member of a race that profited by disadvantaging others, and continues to do so today."

I disagree with that definition. The racial problems she identifies are real, but individuals have moral choices and moral agency, which her answer belies.

Your helpful comment soon afterwards was this: "Tomorrow, let's all stand around in a burning building and quibble over the definition of 'fire'. Since your parents gave you all flame-retardant skin, we should be fine."

You also said there, "This discussion parallels a larger backlash trend across the nation -- primarily coming from white males, who are making grumbling noises seeming to indicate that they have had enough, their apologies have come to an end, and that they will no longer consent to national nagging about their privileged status."

Cards, anyone?

Another quote from you: "To say 'my parents weren't racist' is to say that they were not American and that they were not human." Again, I disagree, because I think this definition of "racist" is overly broad and unhelpful.

And, rereading your words at that thread and this one, I think that about sums it up.

[Chewie]

Nice; you can pull words from somewhere else and decide that I played a card then, and therefore any words I say today are also card-playing. That's pathetic, Ed. If you're proud of it, sleep well.

As to your not taking offense regarding Wells' alleged comments, here's what you said:

"My parents weren't racists, either. If Hammer quoted the Councilwoman accurately, she should apologize."

That one is so crystal clear, I'm willing to let the jury decide.

[Ed Cone]

I'm fine using your words from today alone to say you were playing the white male card, Chewie, but since that previous conversation and this one are pretty much coterminous I don't think there was anything underhanded about it. Certainly nothing I'll lose sleep over.

And not to start another definitional argument, but it's possible to disagree with something without taking offense. I disagreed with the alleged remarks about all white parents teaching their children to judge others based on skin color. Having the slight advantage of actually knowing my parents, I still disagree with them. You seem to agree with them. So it goes.

As I was driving my daughter home tonight, it occurred to me that you (but not Goldie Wells, according to my conversation with her) must think that I'm teaching my own children to judge people by the color of their skin, since I'm human and I live in America.

Again, I can't say this offends me. It's merely untrue.

[jw]

Chewie is certainly capable of answering for herself, but I'm not hearing her words in the same way you are. I'll bet you are NOT teaching your children that...

Think about it as some think about original sin. I see it as the same sort of thing. You're born with it, but you spend your life trying to rise above it. Still, you can't deny being born with it.

[Chewie]

It's convenient that you get to paint my views with the broad brush of everyone you disagree with - as if we were some monolithic block of anti-Ed opinion - rather than engage what I have actually said and stood behind.

Because I think of the term "racism" differently than you, the results that flow from your definition do not flow from mine. Of course I don't believe that you are raising your children to judge people by their skin color. That would only be true if I accepted your definition, and then said that everyone is racist -- which assertion, while attention-getting for you, is not at all faithful to the dialogue we have had.

I fail to see where in my comments I indicated that I "seem to agree" with the notion that all white people are racist by virtue of having been taught by their parents to judge people by their skin color. Because our opinions diverge, you call me "Goldie" and ascribe others' opinions to me. Even as I've gone to such lengths to lay my views out there, you instead choose to invent some for me, or borrow someone else's, and criticize me for holding those views. That's worse than lazy, it's dishonest.

I think higher of your skills of logic and debate than that, and wonder if the conversation has just gone on so long that we are left to taking cheap shots. I'd much rather abandon this thread than go that route.

Only you can say whether you took offense or not, but you behaved and spoke as a person who felt wronged. People who merely disagree with something someone said don't ask that person to apologize. Sorry for taking you at your word.

Peace.

[Ed Cone]

I can't speak for Chewie either, J-dub, I can only quote what she said in defense of the words Goldie Wells has since disavowed, the ones about all white parents teaching their children to judge people on the color of their skin: "To say 'my parents weren't racist' is to say that they were not American and that they were not human."

My poor kids. An angry privilege-hoarding white man for a father, and now this.

I dig what you say about original sin. We are all flawed, frightened, and prejudiced. We all carry with us cultural baggage. I well understand the need to discuss this stuff; I've spent a fair amount of my career as a columnist and blogger doing just that. I just think the word "racist" is already taken, and it means something else -- something related, to be sure, but something different in degree to the point that it is different in kind.

Peace.

[Roch101]

jw wrote: "Still, you can't deny being born with it."

Now that comes close to being racist: the notion that our genes predispose us to some inferiority.

I'll keep an open mind though, any evidence, JW, that racial prejudices are genetic?

[jw]

Roch, this is a prime example of taking a comment out of context and twisting. NO. I did not say that it is genetic. I compared it to original sin. Simply that.

[Roch101]

"Still, you can't deny being born with it."

I twisted that?