I think I understand what you are saying but does it really matter what label is put on a person, people or a group??? Isn't racism, racism, regardless of such??
Meaning, regardless of the labeling group if they are racist it starts and stops with the individual who perpetuates it???? Noting, often enough it is not real but percieved or accused, right???
Good Afternoon, Linda. Happy Sunday!
Aw, Jeeze, not the 'racism' thing again. Why me? OK, because it's you I'll bite; let's start with a definition, shall we?
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior
Note the 'superiority' aspect. The 'I'm better than you because I'm (insert race here)' attitude. Without the superiority aspect, it's not strictly racism. This is what really grinds my grits when these fools go spraying the word RACISM!!!! around without even knowing what they're saying. What they're basically doing is accusing me (or you, or anybody) of having a 'superiority complex'. And the real kicker is it always comes right after you prove to them that their (insert statement here) is completely senseless. Your argument
is superior, therefore you
must think that you
are superior. Hence. you're a racist. When you look at it from that standpoint, it dies kinda make some twisted sense.
Of course, calling somebody a racist is just assigning them a label. Labels are not a good thing in my experience. They are way too generalized and can be redefined way too easily. Remember when it was 'fun' to be 'gay'? Using that word now refers to a sexual preference. How did that happen? How did it become sexually perverse to be 'gay'? Don't even start me on a pair of 'boobs'...
So, yeah, to answer the question, it does matter how people are labeled. Labeling an individual is to 'dehumanize' that person. You are placing them in a neat little box marked (insert label here). I consider that wrong. To label a group may or may not be appropriate. For instance, take the Nazis... Whoa!! OK! OK! Just kidding! Please put the knife down, Linda!! (Changing the subject real quick...) Take the Democrats (no, please, just take them
). They label themselves as being 'progressive'. According to them, they believe that government should perform a prominent role in helping American citizens "progress" further in their economic security. Hence they're 'progressives'. Don't laugh, this is their
label, assigned by them, for themselves. To anyone with some knowledge of political systems, their methodologies in 'helping Americans secure their economic security' look a lot like socialism. But they know that Americans are leery about socialists, so they change their label to 'progressive', and offer to help us all with our economic futures. The more politically naive among us look at this and give it credence because it's not called 'socialism' and anyway, 'free stuff'.
Let's look at another label: 'Liberal'. This has got to be one of the most abused words in the entire lexicon of the world from the first word spoken to today. Originally, to be a liberal was to be in favor of constitutionally limited government and against political interference in the marketplace. The nearest approximation in today's parlance to an 18th century liberal would be a libertarian. The word 'liberal' has been crunched, chewed, twisted, spat out and run over so many times that it bears no resemblance to it's original meaning. Today's liberal is a card carrying, no holds barred, dyed in the wool socialist with communist tendencies. Today's liberal has absolutely no resemblance to the liberal of the 18th and early 19th centuries.
So yeah, labels. I won't hand them out and most certainly won't wear one. Now you know why.