“ The definition of racism is very clear — prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.”
I’ve got “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.”
Nothing to disagree with here! We should be all on the same page.
Unless you are a Professor of Sociology in Harvard University and define racism like this: “contemporary sociology considers racism as individual- and group-level processes and structures that are implicated in the reproduction of racial inequality in diffuse and often subtle ways. Although some social scientists decry this conceptual broadening, most agree that a multivalent approach to the study of racism is at once socially important and analytically useful for understanding the persistence of racial inequality in a purportedly “post-racial” society.”
Do you see the problem here? The definition says that if members of one race are better off than another, that has to be the result of racism! It is a circular definition than obscures rather than focuses understanding. This sort of psychobabble is what we are up against. It is a language used by socialists to belittle their betters, and demonise them for being more successful in life than socialists generally are. If you succeed it is only because of racism, sexism or priviledge. What if it is because you are smarter, or harder working than the next guy? Are you priviledged because you have better DNA and were raised with a work ethic?
Actually you probably are, but these are virtues not something to be ashamed of: they are the cards you were dealt. It’s what you do with them that counts.