This post is to show a small, profound point on vocabulary. In this post, there are two groups of words on I’m focusing:
- bigotry vs. racism
- peace/violence vs. security/terrorism
The former terms are more inducing of peace, and highlight our common ground. The latter terms, “racism” and “security versus terrorism” are inherently violent, and essentially self-promoting even just by using the words.
1. Proposing to use the word Bigotry, Never Racism
To say the word “racism,” in seriousness, is to practice ancestry-based bigotry. This is because in accepting, as sound, the logic that goes into the word “racist” (meaning that different dermal melanin ratios create new species boundaries), you are implying that people of a different “race” are a different species. This is clearly erroneous, and we are all one human species, and one human race. Logically, the only possible form of “racism” is to favor one species over another, and no one uses the word this way. No one says, “Ah, Sheila, I’m pretty racist against trout, let’s do salmon tonight.” Such would be a logical use of the word “racism,” but again, no one uses that word this way.
To truly end “racism,” we must acknowledge that it was a mistake to ever begin using the word itself – and according to new linguistic data from Google, this is a recent mistake, as the word “racism” only came into the popular vernacular in the middle of the 20th century.
If you think there’s a long, luxurious history of the word “racism,” you are clearly wrong. It is not a lovable kluge-of-a-word, filling an important grammatical gap. It is a barbed, violent word, which tears at the sinews and scabs of the heart of any fully aware person who even hears the word be used in casual, unaware seriousness.
By contrast, the word “bigotry” is much older, and much less popular in present day.
Clearly, the word “racism” is a much newer, scarier “newspeak” type word, certainly coming in with the high probability of having been engineered by the, quite bigoted, growingly subtle, powers that were at the time. Indeed the 1800s were even bloodier and rife with maniacal, genocidal violence than was the 20th century – take from this data what you will, but know that the word “racism” is not this old, established word that we need. We don’t need it, and it’s possible that you, yourself, dear reader, are older than the word “racism.”
My overall point here is quite simple: I hope we can all start using the word bigotry to describe the same things we used to call “racist.” By using words we fully understand, we can fight the copious attempts to brainwash us towards the desensitization and acceptance of violence.
2. Proposing to Use the Words Peace / Violence, Never Security / Terrorism
This is the same argument. There is a scary, engineered, “newspeak” word combination (security and terrorism), which creates violence, and destroys logical thought (in favor of a sudden appraisal of immediate emotional state), every time the word is used. “Terrorism” is about creating the emotion of fear. And of course, security in no way implies peace; security only implies the lack of this emotion of fear.
Logically speaking, there can be no “War on Terrorism,” because this is essentially a “war” on “fear.” Wars are waged between sovereign nations, not against internal emotions. Instead of terrorism, I urge you to simply use the word “violence.”
Sadly, peace, as a word, seems to be in the process of being phased out of our collective vocabulary, in favor of “security.”
With usage of the word peace on the decline, and security on the rise, let’s fight these trends that have gripped our less-aware cousins. Terrorism, by contrast, is the newest word on the block here.
Rather than choosing words (security and terrorism) defined by our emotions, which are easily swayed by crowds in a moment, we should focus on using words tied to objective reality, such as peace and violence. By re-wiring our thoughts and words to evaluate the world in terms of peace and violence, we are drawing the lines, and framing the debates, on much more favorable grounds to peace itself.
By rejecting the tacit assumption that a person with a different dermal melanin ratio is thereby a different race, or species, and instead, labeling this form of evangelized ignorance as bigotry, we are taking our world in a peaceful direction.
If You Think Word Length Matters
Ancestry-based bigotry is a bit more of a mouthful to say than “racism,” but then again, “bigot” has one fewer character than “racist.” However, “bigotry” does have one more character than the term “racism,” leaving us essentially at a net wash, if you use the adjective and noun form equally often. Bigotry does not imply any basis on dermal melanin ratios, and often, such bigotry is indeed based on skin color, which is why we must often use the term ancestry-based bigotry, instead of “racism,” and this is essentially a catastrophic loss of brevity for some, but indeed, it’s a small catastrophe to endure, given the violent alternatives.
But regardless of word length, this is a crucial change to our vocabulary, and I sincerely thank you for listening and hearing this subtle, vital point. I am always interested to hear your feedback and thoughts, please don’t hesitate to leave them in the comments.
And just to be clear, while I do favor using the word, itself, bigotry over “racism” (a word whose legitimacy I have not acknowledged), I of course do not favor bigotry itself, as a concept. In using the word bigotry, the intent is to maximally discredit those who are bigots. So I am against bigotry, racism, hate, bias, all this – but on purely linguistic grounds, I am passionately advocating the use of the word bigotry, instead of “racism,” to describe this gleefully ignorant form of skin-color-based-hate.
Literally, in more thoughtfully choosing our everyday vocabulary, we can exude a greater amount of peace into this world, which so desperately needs it.