Racism Redefined by the Orwellian Newspeakers
By: Brooks A. Mick
We’ve had Newspeakers even before Orwell put a name on it. But it seems to have worsened recently.
Clinton decided to call government spending “investment.” As if that makes it less of an expense! Democrats now call it activism when a Supreme Court disagrees with a congressional edict. That’s a ridiculous redefinition, but some people buy it if they are progressive and if it is a far-left law which they support that is struck down.
But the worst redefinition currently is a double-definition of racism, one which excuses blacks from racist behavior and another definition which allows demonizing white people for behavior that is not racist. Here’s what I mean.
The correct, standard, in-effect-for-centuries definition of racism is simply the belief in or the espousing of the inherent superiority of one race compared to another, and one would usually apply this to intelligence, morals, or other non-physical attributes. There is often agreement among blacks and whites concerning some physical characteristics, such as “white men can’t jump,” and few people become incensed and consider this latter type of statement racist. Indeed, black folk often consider such self-evident and a source of pride. I was once playing basketball on a dirt court in Vietnam against a fellow who was a bit shorter than I was but much faster and could jump much higher. After each basket he made, and he made a lot, he would say “Blood will tell.” I took that to mean he was saying “black guys can play basketball better than you white guys.” I didn’t have any particular disagreement with him. He was a better player than I was. The NBA was becoming more predominantly black all the time as the Bob Cousys and George Mikans of my youth were being replaced and overshadowed by fine black players. But I think he was displaying racism in claiming racial superiority.
But then the way racism is being redefined now, it doesn’t mean, according to liberals, that an individual thinks white people or black are superior, but only WHITE people can be racist, because they add another term to the definition. The person being racist must have some sort of power. This then excludes blacks who scream epithets at white people and say they want to “kill crackers and cracker babies,” as the black person displaying what any sane person would call racism is not guilty by reason of powerlessness.
And, just to display total divorce from reality, liberals also are now claiming that anyone who disagrees with Barack Obama’s policies and beliefs and actions is, ipso facto, racist. I think anyone claiming that is, ipso facto, de facto, prima facie, and res ipsa loquitur, simply a partisan propagandist.