Post by Coast2Coast on Nov 10, 2016 12:53:55 GMT -6
Semantics is the meaning of words. In talking with a few Trump supporters, it is apparent to me that one of the communications challenges we have in this country is that people define words differently. "Racism" is a case in point. Many people who voted for Trump believe in their heart of hearts they are not racists. And many surely are not. And many Trump supporters think Trump is not a racist. Of course, many others think he is. So how could people perceive a set of facts so differently? Words like "racist" have specific definitions with specific actions that are easily definable. If you go by the meaning of words, and we all have the same definition, then in theory it should be simple to universally declare a yes or no to the question. The problem is people have their own definitions, and in many cases, their definitions exclude their behavior from being racist.
This is clearly one part of the problem. People define the word differently and have different opinions about what is and is not acceptable behavior. I have a family member who adamantly argues he is not a racist because he does not own slaves. He uses the N word frequently, advocates for his homeowners association to not allow minorities, frequently complains about "food stamps" when minorities use them in the grocery store (but doesn't seem to notice when white folks use them) and resists interactions with people of color. He hated it when minorities worked for him, especially if they didn't speak perfect English. To him, none of those behaviors or attitudes are racist. There are many variations and gradations and nuances of behavior and attitudes that people have that in their minds make them non-racist, but that others would consider absolutely racist. And people who adamantly believe they are not "racist" based on how they define the word resent people "on the other side" calling them racists. I'm going to guess that some people reading this will find some or all of those behaviors I just mentioned racist, while others will think those behaviors are not racist and are perfectly acceptable.
Therein lies the challenge is that certain behaviors are or are not racist depending on how one defines the word. This is happening today as protests spring up around the country. I'm not sure we are going to get anywhere by having people on one side call people on the other side names. So avoiding name calling is good. Seems to me we need to focus on the behaviors, as employment law has done, in defining behaviors and attitudes that are not acceptable. "Building a wall" and "banning Muslims" are racist to some people. To others they are not. Discussing the issues without name-calling would seem to be more productive. Having protests carrying around signs about the "racism" of Trump and Trump voters just puts fuel on the fire of disagreement and gets us further away from understanding why certain public policy proposals are or are not the right ones for our country. It's hard to have a reasoned discussion when name calling gets in the way. There are significant economic and cultural issues associated with the wall and Muslim bans, for example, that have nothing to do with the ethnicities of people affected or racism. But we don't seem to ever be able to discuss them because the "R" word gets the most attention.
I bet if each of us defined the things that we consider to be racist and not racist, we would have disparity in our definitions. And we are all reasonably intelligent, educated grounded people. No surprise we have such disagreement among people in our country who lack some or all of those qualities.
This is clearly one part of the problem. People define the word differently and have different opinions about what is and is not acceptable behavior. I have a family member who adamantly argues he is not a racist because he does not own slaves. He uses the N word frequently, advocates for his homeowners association to not allow minorities, frequently complains about "food stamps" when minorities use them in the grocery store (but doesn't seem to notice when white folks use them) and resists interactions with people of color. He hated it when minorities worked for him, especially if they didn't speak perfect English. To him, none of those behaviors or attitudes are racist. There are many variations and gradations and nuances of behavior and attitudes that people have that in their minds make them non-racist, but that others would consider absolutely racist. And people who adamantly believe they are not "racist" based on how they define the word resent people "on the other side" calling them racists. I'm going to guess that some people reading this will find some or all of those behaviors I just mentioned racist, while others will think those behaviors are not racist and are perfectly acceptable.
Therein lies the challenge is that certain behaviors are or are not racist depending on how one defines the word. This is happening today as protests spring up around the country. I'm not sure we are going to get anywhere by having people on one side call people on the other side names. So avoiding name calling is good. Seems to me we need to focus on the behaviors, as employment law has done, in defining behaviors and attitudes that are not acceptable. "Building a wall" and "banning Muslims" are racist to some people. To others they are not. Discussing the issues without name-calling would seem to be more productive. Having protests carrying around signs about the "racism" of Trump and Trump voters just puts fuel on the fire of disagreement and gets us further away from understanding why certain public policy proposals are or are not the right ones for our country. It's hard to have a reasoned discussion when name calling gets in the way. There are significant economic and cultural issues associated with the wall and Muslim bans, for example, that have nothing to do with the ethnicities of people affected or racism. But we don't seem to ever be able to discuss them because the "R" word gets the most attention.
I bet if each of us defined the things that we consider to be racist and not racist, we would have disparity in our definitions. And we are all reasonably intelligent, educated grounded people. No surprise we have such disagreement among people in our country who lack some or all of those qualities.
