You will have noticed that what used to be defined as racism has changed. It has changed because the old way of defining it was not proving politically useful. Racism, observes Robert Bidinotto, used to be defined objectively … now however it is defined politically.
"RACISM" USED TO BE DEFINED OBJECTIVELY: the belief that the character, intellect, and worth of any given individual is determined, not by his individual choices and actions, but by his genetic and racial ancestry. Racism is thus a variant of collectivism: judging people not as individuals, but by their accidental "membership" in some racial/ethnic collective. The belief that some racial collectives are "superior" or "inferior" to others -- intellectually, morally, aesthetically, etc. -- is a disgusting corollary of this notion of biochemical and genetic determinism.
This is the standard espoused by Martin Luther King in his deservedly famous speech in which in dared to dream big:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Racism by this objective standard is a denial of free will, and an embrace of tribalism, determinism and collectivism. So that will never do; a new definition was needed by the social-justice warrior who embraces all three:
Their new definition changes "racism" from a belief system to a political system. Now, "racism is a system in which a dominant race benefits off the oppression of others — whether they want to or not." (See the linked article.) In other words, according to this hijacked definition, in America only white people (the "dominant race") are or can be "racists," even if they harbour no attitude of racial prejudice. By contrast, no black (or "minority") can possibly be a "racist," even if they do harbour racial prejudice.
By this redefinition, "racism" is now a genetic-based moral crime attributable to whites only, as a collective. And because whites are *inherently* racists -- even if, individually, they choose NOT to be racially prejudiced -- "racism" has become akin to the doctrine of "original sin": All whites are born guilty of the sin of racism, because they are inherently "privileged" and thus are "oppressors" of minorities...not by what they choose to do, but simply by being white.
Note how neatly the re-definition effectively overturns the whole notion of racism:
- So if you’re literally colourblind and want one law for all then you are a racist.
- And if you base your whole world-view on arguing that some races need legal preference, then you are simply a good social-justice warrior who will view Don Brash’s views as “quaint,” and will be “virtue signalling” by calling Hobson Pledgers racist.
- And when “the subverted definition of ‘racism" is even infecting the Google search engine,” this is why you know you can get away with it – even when your re-definition is the very essence of racism.
It’s such a through-going attack on the objective definition, observes Bidinotto, that even Martin Luther King’s statement itself is under attack by this new generation of ignorati.
What’s the antidote? Individualism, say Bidinotto:
[Individualism] holds that people must be judged, not as members of arbitrary classes and accidental collectives, but as INDIVIDUALS, solely on the basis of their freely chosen statements and actions. It does not attribute moral status to one's ancestry or genetics or physical traits, or to anything that is not voluntarily chosen by or under the control of the individual…
Those who truly oppose racism must reject the racial/genetic determinism at its foundation. They must affirm the dream of Dr. King, and judge individuals by their personal character and deeds, and not by their biological ancestry or collective class "memberships." They must reject the notions of racial superiority or inferiority.
They must embrace individualism, and reject collectivism in any form, including its lowest: racism.
They might begin by embracing the idea behind Hobson’s Pledge – embracing the individualism of One Law For All -- instead of rejecting it on the basis of collective outcomes, deterministic predictions of disaster, a phony fascination with “power structures: – and a barnyard view of human beings that is objectively racist.