"It's not racism without race" is what you meant. Literally no concept of the ideas of "races" until this time. There cannot be prejudice along lines which are not yet drawn. This isn't needless pedantry, this is fundamental to understanding what racism is and how to address it.
People had concepts of different ethnicities and reasons for subjegating, persecuting, and enslaving them before race science was invented. Utterly ahistorical to believe otherwise
I never said people should not know the history and origins of white supremacism. What I am saying is people aren't going to give much of a shit about ending "racism" if you whittle it down to just "race science based persecution". They still want the persecution to end. If you get rid of the current ideological framework but don't address the underlying causes then another framework will re emerge.
This is an exercise in being able to relate to other people and not being an ivory tower pedant. If you told someone oppressed by racism that racism has ended but their oppression still remained they'll be perfectly justified to give you a beat down.
That's why I keep calling you a pedant. If you say "capitalism invented racism" and don't specify "white supremacism" people are going to call you full of shit.
This might come a surprise to you but to mobilize the working class you have to be able to communicate to them. Being a smugly academic pedant is going to get you no where.
That's why I keep calling you a pedant. If you say "capitalism invented racism" and don't specify "white supremacism" people are going to call you full of shit.
Except that I'm correct, and what I'm saying is basically unanimously agreed upon among historians and there's ample literature of racism first appearing at this time. So if people "think I'm full of shit" I can then educate them on reality, as I'm doing here. And while doing so, it's a great time to also spell out dialectical materialism with a concrete example. This is why the difference is significant, cause your definition doesn't challenge the idealists while mine does.
Stop trying to change definitions. Just stick to what is universally understood. It causes confusion and misunderstanding and feeds into Liberals idealism, as seen in this thread.
"It's not racism without race" is what you meant. Literally no concept of the ideas of "races" until this time. There cannot be prejudice along lines which are not yet drawn. This isn't needless pedantry, this is fundamental to understanding what racism is and how to address it.
People had concepts of different ethnicities and reasons for subjegating, persecuting, and enslaving them before race science was invented. Utterly ahistorical to believe otherwise
I never said people should not know the history and origins of white supremacism. What I am saying is people aren't going to give much of a shit about ending "racism" if you whittle it down to just "race science based persecution". They still want the persecution to end. If you get rid of the current ideological framework but don't address the underlying causes then another framework will re emerge.
This is an exercise in being able to relate to other people and not being an ivory tower pedant. If you told someone oppressed by racism that racism has ended but their oppression still remained they'll be perfectly justified to give you a beat down.
It seems like you fundamentally don't disagree with me, you're just really attached to using the incorrect words
That's why I keep calling you a pedant. If you say "capitalism invented racism" and don't specify "white supremacism" people are going to call you full of shit.
This might come a surprise to you but to mobilize the working class you have to be able to communicate to them. Being a smugly academic pedant is going to get you no where.
Except that I'm correct, and what I'm saying is basically unanimously agreed upon among historians and there's ample literature of racism first appearing at this time. So if people "think I'm full of shit" I can then educate them on reality, as I'm doing here. And while doing so, it's a great time to also spell out dialectical materialism with a concrete example. This is why the difference is significant, cause your definition doesn't challenge the idealists while mine does.
Stop trying to change definitions. Just stick to what is universally understood. It causes confusion and misunderstanding and feeds into Liberals idealism, as seen in this thread.