odder still, this ... on the word "racism" ...

odder still, this  ...  on the word "racism"  ...

such are the vagaries of language that a subtle change in the meaning of a word has occurred before our eyes and mind, almost without notice.

i speak of the word "racism."  oh, it is still a word of opprobrium, and nobody is immune from the sting of the word is accused of being a racist, or advancing racism.  but, the thrust of the word has changed, and it amounts to a complete change in the nature of the accusation.

racism used to mean that the racist was a person who devoutly believed that his racial or ethnic group was superior to another, or, indeed, superior to all others, and was usually a concept antecedent to an attempt at domination or even the elimination of another race or ethnic group.  thus, in europe in the 1850's, we saw the spectacle of european anthropologists and phrenologists, and perhaps even hairdressers, pontificating upon the superiority of the white race over the african race, and with skull measurements and aesthetic observations as collateral evidence of the proposition.

it was a foundation of empire.  it was an intellectual and psychological make weight to excuse the conquest and domination of another group or society.  and, the europeans, not missing a turn, turned the same attitudes towards others, including jews, as an excuse for anti semitism.

hitler's germans were not the only anti semites in europe: it was a european sin, and the peculiar conceits lying as its underpinnings were applied the world over.

that is not the application of the word this day.

as used in contemporary parlance, the word is applied specifically to those who resist immigration of foreign nationals into their native lands (such word usage, indeed, in and of itself might be termed as "racist" by those who wield it as an offensive intellectual sword), such foreign nationals almost exclusively of islamic, muslim or arabic origin.  those who usually raise such objections are european nationalists and americans who oppose islamic immigration into europe and america, and such persons with a nationalistic bent are decried and derided as racists.

do such persons posit their racial superiority over the muslim immigrants whose presence they decry?  if they do, it is not in such a manner as i have ever been made aware of, and i am not aware that any person of prominence in the european nationalist or american conservative movement has ever made such an allegation.

no, those people who have decried islamic & muslim immigration have done so on the basis that they wish simply to preserve those affinities, beliefs, religions, cultural heritages and adherence to western values and civilization such as have identified and give cultural vitality to their societies, and their nations.

yet, those who wield the term in derision at the nationalists and conservatives insist that islamic and muslim immigration be imposed upon the european nations, and that if the europeans do not acquiesce in such social policies as forced upon them by leftist governments, ... , why then, they are racists.

so, the worm has turned.

no longer does the term racist describe one who would advance the notion of his own superiority as justification for the conquest of another, as in the old european model that supported colonialism and so many other misadventures, ... , but it is applied to one who would assert his own identity and his right to resist and oppose his own conquest.

by islam.

those who wield the phrase as an offensive weapon upon european nationalists, insist upon the right of islam to advance its interests over indigenous populations, and ultimately to dominate and conquer european nationals.

in short, the word racist is now turn upon those who resist their own conquest, and at the hands of an intruding and in their view interloping foreign force.

geert wilders, for instance, does not advance the superiority of the dutch in order to justify conquest of north africa.  he simply insists that the dutch, having derived certain benefits, comforts of association, and advancement of certain values by being dutch and by having stayed dutch, should have the right to remain dutch and to preserve themselves, in their homes and in their country, should they see fit.

he resists the notion that the dutch should acquiesce passively to islamic conquest by demographic pressure and demographic invasion, and insists that the dutch be allowed to take those measures to remain dutch, and to remain the netherlands.

he seeks no conquest outside his borders.

and, for this, in the eyes of the international left, the leftist media, and the leftist intelligentsia, geert wilders is a racist.

he most assuredly is not.

he most assuredly is not, as mr. hegel was, buying into all the nonsense advanced by the european "scholars" and "intellectuals" of his time, as to the racial superiority of the white europeans, especially the western europeans as epitomized by germany and germans.  he had the dialectic to prove it.

odd, this, this change in the use of the word, and of the weight of its attack.

it no longer is used to accuse and blunt aggression, or the dominance of those who asserted superiority.

it is used now in an attempt to force others to passively accept dominance by others.  in other words, if you do not accept insinuation into your society by others and accept their eventual rule, you are a racist.  in short, you are a racist, if you do not simply accept your fate passively, and accede willingly to the right of others to dominate you, those others typically being different from yourself.

all the animals are equal on this farm, it is just that some are more equal than others, and they get to decide how words are used, and against whom they are directed, and whose purposes they advance.

odd, this.

john jay @ 11.15.2009 

update:  i got such a big laugh from gmroper's comment, that it put me to mind of one of my favorites, that being ambrose bierce and his famous work, "the devil's dictionary."  gm's remarks reminded me of one of my favorite observations from bierce, his definition of the term "infidel."

so, here from the "devil's dictionary" by ambrose bierce:

INFIDEL, n. In New York, one who does not believe in the Christian religion; in Constantinople, one who does. A kind of scoundrel imperfectly reverent of, and niggardly contributory to, divines, ecclesiastics, popes, parsons, canons, monks, mollahs, voodoos, presbyters, hierophants, prelates, obeah-men, abbes, nuns, missionaries, exhorters, deacons, friars, hadjis, high-priests, muezzins, brahmins, medicine-men, confessors, eminences, elders, primates, prebendaries, pilgrims, prophets, imaums, beneficiaries, clerks, vicars-choral, archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, preachers, padres, abbotesses, caloyers, palmers, curates, patriarchs, bonezs, santons, beadsmen, canonesses, residentiaries, diocesans, deans, subdeans, rural deans, abdals, charm-sellers, archdeacons, hierarchs, class-leaders, incumbents, capitulars, sheiks, talapoins, postulants, scribes, gooroos, precentors, beadles, fakeers, sextons, reverences, revivalists, cenobites, perpetual curates, chaplains, mudjoes, readers, novices, vicars, pastors, rabbis, ulemas, lamas, sacristans, vergers, dervises, lectors, church wardens, cardinals, prioresses, suffragans, acolytes, rectors, cures, sophis, mutifs and pumpums.

that should just about cover it.  laughing. jjjay.

Comments

[GM Roper]

John, fascinating post and well said. Of course, the left uses the word racist anytime they think you may have the right side of any argument. Hence, Israelis are racist in their refusal to bow down to the Palestinian jihadists, middle America (regardless of race) is racist if they oppose the massive illegal immigration that is going on from our southern border and, seldom mentioned from our northern border. If you oppose the multiculti onslaught you are racist, regardless of your race or culture. And of course, if you oppose Muslim intransigence and terrorism, you are a racist which is really odd considering that Muslim is not a race.

Again, I truly love reading your posts, and this was one of the very best.

[john jay]

george:

thanks so very much, this is high praise indeed from you.

i appreciate it, and i am warmed by it.

thanks again.

john jay

p.s. friends, gmroper runs a very good blog, and i drop by from time to time, just to see what he has posted. there are very good, and very thought provoking reads there. please visit, at http://www.gmsplace.com/ .

[dickiebo]

Would you allow me to re-produce this on my blog, please? I would, of course, give full accreditation for it to you and your blog.

[Robert]

Hmmm, if refusing to bow down to bullies, opposing attempts at revolution through massive illegal immigration, and resisting predatory conquest are all racist, then racism seems rather... well... normal, and absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. If that's how God made man, who are we to be ashamed of inherent human nature?

[john jay]

robert:

i certainly see no reason why a dane or a swede or a nigerian shouldn't take pride in himself and his countrymen, and should not feel free to maintain and protect who his is, and who they are.

and i see no reason why they should change what they are to suit someone else's notion of who he wants to be.

john jay