[paranoiacblack]

We'll never agree because I'm arguing about what racism is (a semantic argument) and you're arguing about how racism is defined (a pedantic argument). Perhaps my original post was a red herring. I was merely justifying that what she said lines up with a known definition, not that it is the ONLY correct definition.

Also, your definition of what racism connotes is severely lacking as well. Simplifying racism to "something that connotes immorality" is a gross oversimplification.

[josh-j]

You have it backwards. I don't care how racism is defined. I care about whatever the word "racism" points to in the real world. But you have to realize that a word can point to anything you want it to point to.

And not only that, but words have denotations and connotations. "Ugly", in common usage, denotes and points to a set of subjective physical characteristics. "Ugly" also connotes and points to a negative affect that isn't explicit in its denotation.

I'm not simply saying that racism is "something that connotes immorality", but that is what we're connotating when we use that word in its various denotations (although, it's not necessarily the case). Racism's denotation can be literally anything. I can say, for example, that it's racist to call Canadians effusive pushovers even though "Canadian" is a nationality rather than a race.

And people do exactly that. In the U.K., for example, it's common for people to call people that insult the French "racist."

Language is fluid.

So, I think you can see why people are affronted when someone says "black people cannot be racist" without putting it within a certain context. The implication is that it's not immoral for black people to act denotatively common-usage-racist.