Interestingly enough, when I sat in front of the keyboard for the first time today I had no idea what I was going to write about. Turns out I wrote enough to flood LocalFeeds the first day I joined up.
Most of it was blogging, not writing but you know what I mean. I put a bunch of words on the site.
And I was just floating around the net and wound up at Dru Blood, reading a post that I'd run across in the thick of the Identity Blogging discussion. It was about that bake sale thing, so I didn't link it, but Tonio said in the comments
and I flashed back to a semi-humorous post at Open Source Politics, caled Conservative-Sounding Policy Initiative:
and this light bulb flashes on in my head. Maybe we should call affirmative action "African-American Legacy Programs." We can call them ALPs sp everyone thinks we're talking about Swiss people, and no one would dare suggest we get rid of legacy programs, right?
Word play.
Which reminded me to get back to a post by The Everlasting Phelps wherein he makes a right-angle turn from the Identity Blogging discussion, pivoting on my explanation of why I deal in race in binary fashion when I know that's not strictly accurate. He's wrong in thinking I don't agree with him (well, at least to the degree that he agrees with me), and right in thinking it doesn't matter between us anyway…as well as in saying it's a broader issue than the conversation we are holding.
Using these words in an inexact manner is something that even I have been guilty of in the past few weeks, and I make a point of keeping myself on guard for it. Language is living. Words change meaning as we use them, and it becomes very difficult to use a word with a specific meaning when those you are conversing with are not using them in the same manner. We tend to adopt the definitions others use -- and that is a Good Thing. It is what lets us communicate with each other without having to create a dictionary ahead of time. In this case, though, the definitions that we have been changing have been becoming more and more amorphous, and less useful as a result.
Now, there's actually a whole hell of a lot of specifics I could take issue with in his post. In fact, let's get it out of the way:
Whenever you hear people talking about the inferiority of Black culture as though every Black person either belongs to or escaped from it, you're hearing the the transmission of the "Classical Racist" mindset, hidden within the bigot's speech. A wolf in fox's clothing, as it were.
By now you're wondering why I said I agree with him, I bet.
I agree because it's the weakening of meaning that allows the racist to get away with it, until you can't tell a wolf from a fox from a dog.
Phelps suggests a tightening of definitions, what Confucious used to call a rectification of names to fix this…but that only works in a unitary culture. And regardless of what some believe there has never been such a culture on this continent. Europeans of a nations, Amerinds and Africans formed the initial mix and there have been constant influxes from all three major groups ever since. Nailing down common definitions is much like nailing jello cubes to the incoming tide.
The alternative may be more difficult, though.
The fact that we can adopt the definitions others use means we are capable of distinguishing between that which is being indicated and that which we indicate with. The fact that we get twisted by twisted words means we don't. As is said in Zen, It is like pointing at the moon and paying attention to the finger. And trying to solve problems of indication by refining our language is like studying the moon from a reflection in a bowl of water.
In this society, we hardly EVER see the moon. We get commercials, speeches, lectures, spin, spin, spin…all reflections in bowls containing water of varying levels of clarity.
If we don't understand that understanding (connections between things perceived) rather than thought (verbalizations of perceptions) is what intelligence must operate on, we will live under the tyranny of words forever. If we do, we can be their master. And until we are their master, our ability to think will always be limited to the concepts current to society.
Posted by P6 at September 29, 2003 09:16 PM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1792I tried to find something on the etymology of "racism" so I could argue with you, and it was hard. This is from The Online Etymology Dictionary:
race (2) - "people of common descent," 1520, originally of wines with characteristic flavor, also "group of people with common occupation," and "generation;" from M.Fr. razza "race, breed, lineage," possibly from It., of unknown origin. Modern meaning of "one of the great divisions of mankind based on physical peculiarities" is from 1774. Racial is first attested 1862. Racist is 1932 as a noun (1938 as an adjective), racism is first attested 1936; both originally in the context of Nazi theories, but they replaced earlier words, racialism (1907) and racialist (1917), both often used at first in a South African context. "Just being a Negro doesn't qualify you to understand the race situation any more than being sick makes you an expert on medicine." [Dick Gregory, 1964]If the word really did come about in 36 in relation to Nazi eugenics, then it applied not only to white vs. black, but really Aryian vs black, jew, other white people, Arabs, Indians, etc.
I'm pretty much dealing in American English, so I deal in the meaning as used un the USofA.