Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittatc!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: defining racism -- Laura on compassi
Message-ID: <28200531@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 23:00:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200531
Posted: Tue Jan  7 23:00:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jan-86 21:28:15 EST
References: <336@l5.UUCP>
Lines: 36
Nf-ID: #R:l5:-33600:inmet:28200531:000:1676
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Jan  7 23:00:00 1986


[carnes@gargoyle]
>>The  *opposite*  kind of racial screening is
>>widely practiced (the affirmative action). I agree that this is a
>>racist  practice;  but  it  does not proceed from a racist *atti-
>>tude*. I don't believe, though,  that  this  is  "most"  or  most
>>dangerous form of, racism.

>Affirmative action programs are a form of
>discrimination, and it is matter for debate whether such
>discrimination is justifiable or not, but to call affirmative action
>"racism" shows a stronger attachment to emotion-clouded rhetoric than
>to clear thinking.  I have often been surprised by the way many
>netters sling around terms like "racism" to score debaters' points
>without, apparently, understanding what the terms mean.
>  [definition from Britannica]

OK, I plead guilty of using the word "racism" with  a  nondic-
tionary  meaning,  not  guilty  of the motives you ascribe to me.
Fact is, I used it  in  the  same  sense  as  my  opponent  (Tony
Wuersch),  so  it  wasn't  a  ploy  on  my part to score debating
points.
 As for "emotion-clouded rhetoric", that would only make sense if
the  word  "racism" carried different emotional connotations than
"racial discrimination" which you admit affirmative action is. To
me  it  certainly  doesn't. The concept I needed was very broad -
namely, any hostile action or attitude towards anyone,  based  on
their race. Racism seemed to fit, but I'll respect Britannica and
desist from using it, using "bigotry" for attitude and "discrimi-
nation" for behavior.

The whole article you object to is very easy to rewrite with this
substitution; it is not dependent in any way on the objectionable
term.

                        Jan Wasilewsky