[lbo-talk] Fight the taboo on the use of the word "racist"

jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Tue Mar 14 12:42:43 PST 2006


On 14 Mar 2006 at 14:06, Charles Brown wrote:


> Jim Devine _
>
> The GOPsters are racist, yes, but using that word too much weakens its
> meaning.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Not using it enough weakens the fight against racism. The problem
> nowadays , including on the left, is that the word "racist" is not used
> enough , not at all that it is used too much. In fact, what we have too much
> on the left is concern that using the word "racist" too much will "weaken
> its meaning." There is no problem whatsoever of using the word "racist" too
> much on the left. We get formulations such as "Condeleeza Rice won't get the
> Republican nomination because of "you know what" ( the forbidden "r" word;
> don't want to use it because we might erode its meaning; give me a break)."

So why is there a reticence to use the word racist?

Is it a fear that the problem is much more prevalent than some like to think so they avoid using the word to avoid thinking about it too much?

It seems many people think the word can only be used in the most egregious examples rather than in the hundreds of small everyday examples of racism.

I don't buy the overuse of the word will erode its meaning explanation. That rings hollow to me.

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list