(Merriam-Webster is revising its definition of racism)
Words matter. Definitions matter. It is good that there is an effort to revise the definition in the dictionary. The existing definition was wrong not only because it was incomplete but because it was also inaccurate. You could be prejudiced against someone and be racist without disliking him. You might really like somebody and be convinced that he is lazy, unintelligent, or particularly gifted because of his race.
That’s why calling the restructuring and reformation of police departments “defunding” is an incredibly stupid move. I strongly support the effort. I utterly oppose the term.
In terms of the discipline of semantics it is a negatively loaded term. It carries heavy emotional impact which will make people oppose the action simply because of the name applied to it. It hurts the cause unnecessarily.
It’s just as easy to say reform the police. This is much more accurate and is a positively loaded term.
Consider the issue of reparations. I absolutely support justice for all and a fair chance for every child in America. But I oppose reparations for the descendants of slaves. There are a number of reasons for this, not least of which is, do we pay full reparations to every Black person?. What if that person is a recent immigrant and their ancestors were never slaves? What if the person has more White ancestry then Black ancestry? Not to mention my most basic question, should we be paying reparations for something that happened over a century ago? (And please consider the effect on White Supremacists. They would say, “Well we paid you, so now you have to shut up and we never want to hear about slavery again”.)
I have only heard one other person make a statement which I made on the issue of reparations when it first became popular again. And that is, we absolutely should be paying reparations to the people who actually suffered from Jim Crow laws. They are alive today. They suffered. They deserve compensation.
The problem here is that I’m not opposed to the concept of reparations as many who support them define the term. Ask any group of people demanding reparations what they mean by the word and you’ll get a wide variety of definitions. Most of those definitions I support.
Some of the definitions given by strong supporters of the concept of reparations with which I agree include equal justice, good education systems, safe neighborhoods, assistance in raising social economic status of the poor, and other very beneficial and positive programs. The problem is, not a one of these meets the definition of reparations.
The word reparations is racially divisive and to millions of White people suggests that they personally should feel guilty for what their great grandfathers may or may not have done. If you want justice and demand reparations you are helping to ensure that justice will be harder to accomplish. Words matter. An emotionally charged word, whether positive or negative, changes the way people perceive the concept. People who could support your position wholeheartedly may turn against it because you chose the wrong word to describe it.
Consider the concept of White privilege. White people struggling desperately to make it in the system stacked against them are not privileged. Not by any reasonable definition. Most people who refer to White privilege are in fact referring to the absence of justice and equality for minorities. Tell a person that he has a privilege and you are telling him that he has something he shouldn’t have and which you are going to take away from him and give to someone else.. This is not a way to gain that person’s support for your cause.
Once again, I support what these activists are trying to accomplish. And because of that I am opposed to the misuse of this terms. Why go out of your way to turn people against you who otherwise would support you?
Imagine if, instead of demanding justice for the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, the prosecution had declared that they wanted vengeance and lynchings? Words matter. The terms you choose matter. Choose carefully. Choose well. Don’t set yourself back and start your struggle with an unnecessary burden by using in your face divisive terminology.
Consider the Republican Party. They have been purging voter rolls and suppressing minority votes for decades. But they don’t call it that, do they? They say they are preventing fraud and preserving the right to vote. It’s a lie, but it’s a good one. It has convinced millions of Americans to support their efforts to end democracy in this country.
Just in case anyone didn’t get the message, I strongly support the efforts to restructure police departments and shift funds wasted on tanks and military equipment back into social programs. This would benefit the communities and benefit the police departments. But calling it defunding the police is a really dumb ass thing to do.
