And, as you and I know, white privilege as an action and benefit existed long before there was a word for it. The practice of white privilege or European privilege had gone on for a millennia.White privilege has existed in concept since the 1700s, when Britain began using it in reference to the Irish.
It's the concept put into American law by the Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857):
W.E.B. DuBois coined the specific term of "white privilege" for this idea in his writings in the 1930s as Jim Crow was reaching its peak. The basic concept is that in any matter of question between a white man and a black man, the white man will be presumed correct.
You still have not shown any work or addressed my point.The year or book? Because if you mean the year would make no sense and if you mean the book, you clearly don’t understand what that book is about. There is a rather large irony in claiming that a core word has recently been redefined, but then accusing somebody who says it hasn’t of acting like they’re in 1984.
Ah. You’re one of those. “Agree or be quiet.”
Well, I said that the only people who claim that the definition has expanded are those who don’t want to examine how their behavior overlaps with what is considered privilege or racism, but would rather accuse others of moving the goalpost making others the problem and thus being able to avoid accountability.
You know, like telling people to “show their work or keep silent.”
Then I said your watered down definition of racism was never just “judging based on race.” Thus proving that the issue isn’t that the definition expanded, but that you have a poor understanding of it and what it means.
Since it was your initial (baseless) claim was that the words are modern and the definitions have expanded over the years, I could have done the juvenile “show your work” baloney you’re fond of… But since I *clearly* know more about the topic than you, have a better understanding of social history than you, and me asking you to prove something that I know to be unprovable (because you made it up) is a waste of time, I simply cut to the chase to tell you that you’re wrong.
I actually did do all the above. The rest is on you. I cannot do your comprehending or thinking for you.You still have not shown any work or addressed my point.
We're you going to get round to addressing the issue or just dancing around the subject?
You yourself showed that the words are modern. So my claim is not baseless.
According to the textbook definition blacks can be racist against whites.... is that also your opinion? Is that a valid use of the definition of racism? Balck on white racism?
I actually did do all the above. The rest is on you. I cannot do your comprehending or thinking for you.
post #13And nowhere anywhere did I say the words or concepts are modern. Literally everybody reading this thread can see that. You claiming otherwise says and reveals more about you than me.
so this would be a change of definition of the word.According to actual textbook definitions, POC cannot be racist against whites. They can be biased or prejudiced against them, but not racist.
it is from the dictionary. So how non factual is the dictionary?According to your non-factual definition of racism,
The dictionary definition.I suppose that POC can be racist towards white people, but since it’s your definition and not one based on reality
What allegations am I trying to draw?I suppose only you can answer that. Though based on this line of questioning and looking down the road at the very… Let’s say extremely unwise… Allegations and conclusions you’re trying to draw, I see more and more why you’re uncomfortable with not sticking to your watered down definitions.
That would be an assumption that you are a woman... and I have not made that assumption.I’d explain it to you more, but I’d hate to be accused of womansplaining… The actual topic of the thread.
“Might be new-ish” as in “could be thought of as new by some people I suppose” is not the same as saying the words or concepts are modern.post #13
It is a change in your understanding of the word, apparently, but the definition has remained the same.so this would be a change of definition of the word.
It is not the dictionary definition. Racism has multiple components in order to be racism vs being simply prejudiced.it is from the dictionary. So how non factual is the dictionary?
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the definition and get back to us.The dictionary definition.
You and I both know what you’re trying to draw.What allegations am I trying to draw?
I am only saying that the words you say have not changed, have indead changed.
It was actually a hint that your radicalism had steered the topic wildly off course from the OP. A hint you missed, apparently.That would be an assumption that you are a woman... and I have not made that assumption.
What does that have to do with anything related to the topic of mansplaining, other than to be could say you’re attempting to hijack the thread to be one long mansplaining of racism despite clearly not knowing what you’re talking about.Is there any positive aspects of cultural appropriation?
Exactly the same.“Might be new-ish” as in “could be thought of as new by some people I suppose” is not the same as saying the words or concepts are modern.
I have not changed my understanding. Maybe you have.It is a change in your understanding of the word, apparently, but the definition has remained the same.
yes it is.It is not the dictionary definition. Racism has multiple components in order to be racism vs being simply prejudiced.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the definition and get back to us.
I have no idea what you are driving at. I am just making the point that definitions gave changed over time.You and I both know what you’re trying to draw.
I am just responding to your posts. If you want this to get back on track just.post about the OP and I will respond in kind.It was actually a hint that your radicalism had steered the topic wildly off course from the OP. A hint you missed, apparently.
Continuing the discussion from our original interaction. You remember.What does that have to do with anything?
Thanks for explaining to me what I believe and think and what my opinions are. Where would I be without you to tell me what I actually mean when I say something.Exactly the same.
I have not changed my understanding. Maybe you have.
yes it is.
racism
rā′sĭz″əm
noun
So Blacks can be racist against Whites by definition.
- The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
- Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
I have no idea what you are driving at. I am just making the point that definitions gave changed over time.
I am just responding to your posts. If you want this to get back on track just.post about the OP and I will respond in kind.
Continuing the discussion from our original interaction. You remember.
On the plus side, you’ve proven mansplaining is definitely a thing.Someone has to.
My view is “mansplaining” isn’t a thing as it’s from a misandrist mindset. Do you hear any man say to stop “womansplaining”? Nope because it’s not a thing except to show you don’t value the opposite sex explaining their different views on average it’s used only when a woman disagrees with a man’s opinion.
What are your thoughts?
As a man I'm telling you, thats not mansplaining if you stop and help her.Is that like when you're driving down the road and see a woman with a flat tire reading the owners manual to her car and you're too afraid to stop and help or did you mean something else?
How so?As a man I'm telling you, that is mansplaining.
It's more like when you see the woman actually in the process of changing the tire and stop to give her direction.Is that like when you're driving down the road and see a woman with a flat tire reading the owners manual to her car and you're too afraid to stop and help or did you mean something else?
My view is “mansplaining” isn’t a thing as it’s from a misandrist mindset. Do you hear any man say to stop “womansplaining”? Nope because it’s not a thing except to show you don’t value the opposite sex explaining their different views on average it’s used only when a woman disagrees with a man’s opinion.
What are your thoughts?
I think either could do it. A woman could talk down to her husband (or a man) about a topic she perceives herself to know better, whether or not that view is accurate. A man could do exactly the same thing.My view is “mansplaining” isn’t a thing as it’s from a misandrist mindset. Do you hear any man say to stop “womansplaining”? Nope because it’s not a thing except to show you don’t value the opposite sex explaining their different views on average it’s used only when a woman disagrees with a man’s opinion.
What are your thoughts?
Like my wife constantly telling me how to drive and where to park.I think either could do it. A woman could talk down to her husband (or a man) about a topic she perceives herself to know better, whether or not that view is accurate. A man could do exactly the same thing.
I just appreciate it if someone is actually trying to help me, as in some of the examples above.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?