tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post8191718662827326961..comments2023-10-03T03:29:34.972-04:00Comments on Sprachgefuhl: How does "racialist" differ from "racist"?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-7897426717895487262015-07-23T16:51:58.909-04:002015-07-23T16:51:58.909-04:00Race, Racism, Racist, Racial, Racialism, Racialist...Race, Racism, Racist, Racial, Racialism, Racialist<br />The Noah Webster Dictionary of the English Language 1888 defines the word “race” as:<br />race:<br />“1. The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, a tribe, people, or a nation, believed or presumed to belong to the same stock; a lineage; a breed.”<br />It then goes on to provide examples of several divisions of the various races, or how some have determined why these various divisions of the races do exist.<br />The word “racist” does not exist in this 1888 dictionary. However, the word racist does exist in our much newer American Heritage Dictionary 1991. It appears that the word racist is a rather new word that has been provided with a new definition in the English language.<br />Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth edition, defines the word “race” as:<br />Race:<br />“An ethnical stock; a great division of mankind having in common certain distinguishing physical peculiarities constituting a comprehensive class appearing to be derived from a distinct primitive source. A tribal or national stock; a division or subdivision of one of the great racial stocks of mankind distinguished by minor peculiarities.”<br />The American Heritage Dictionary 1991 defines the word “racism” as:<br />racism:<br />“1. The belief that race accounts for difference in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” (Emphasis ours).<br />“2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race, - racist.”<br />It is interesting to see that this definition (as is now used in many newer English dictionaries) has been designed to fall into a negative connotation by the addition and wording of the phrase “…and that a particular race is superior to others” and also by the definition of item “2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.”<br />Unfortunately such a definition makes no account or provisions for someone who may believe that there are indeed differences among the various races on the globe; do not believe that “a particular race is superior to another.” It is not really that difficult by simple observation, or by using modern scientific genotype to come to the conclusion that there are indeed differences among the various races on the globe that may contribute to character, ability, physical features, skin color, or a multitude of other variations and distinct differences among the races on the globe, none of which would have anything to do with the modern definitions of “racism, racist, or prejudice” or that obvious existing differences would lead to the conclusion that “a particular race is superior to another.”<br />It is a fact that “all men are not in any way “created equal,” but that all men (using the term “men” collectively) are without exception different, and not at all created to be equal. All men are “equal” only by the expressed application of civil or moral laws when those laws are adapted as a National standard. (for example the unanimous Declaration of the 13 united States of America, July 4, 1776).Yochannanhttp://assemblyoftrueisrael.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-43261495738264162011-06-29T15:29:48.440-04:002011-06-29T15:29:48.440-04:00The less strong association of racialism with doct...The less strong association of racialism with doctrines of superiority than is the case with racism is indeed the reason that Phil Klinkner and I used "racialism" in certain contexts.<br /><br />Rogers SmithRogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801995740057369653noreply@blogger.com