“Racism” is a neologism so recent that it wasn’t in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1970

>“Racism” is a neologism so recent that it wasn’t in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1970.

WTF How is this possible?

Attached: Persephone_and_the_Pomegranate_2009.jpg (3280x2460, 1.25M)

Other urls found in this thread:

heretical.com/miscella/racism.html
amazon.com/gp/product/B004YM3DPY/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i7
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

"Racism" was introduced into English by a jew as a means to morally shame white people who acted in their own group interests.

heretical.com/miscella/racism.html

didn't it used to be 'racialism'?
also no one said a bad word about slavery until 250 years ago

Because we had used "bigotry" and "prejudiced" before.

Nah, racialism is different. It's more like the development and emphasis of a racial doctrine. Racism is more like the inaccurate stereotyping and labels of inferiority/superiority. Racialism is what anyone allowed any measure of power in the West promotes and even legally enforces today, America is obsessed with it. Though today racism is meaningless, just means 'be socially shamed' even if there are no different groups involved let alone races, it's easy to contrive one. That's not to say racists don't exist but today if they do they have actual reasons rather than mere dislike for the foreign, because it's much easy to fall into the mainstream narrative than it is to be heretical. Of course everyone's been indoctrinated so they will instantly feel deep shame and aversion with that word put on them, because of that power it's no longer a legitimate word with a definition, but a tool.

>also no one said a bad word about slavery until 250 years ago
That's not true. The slavery practiced colonially during Modernity would be unpalatable to any society not economically based on their own type of slavery, most of the world was not at any time (despite still having slaves). Europe didn't have slavery, despite traditionally taking war prisoners as slaves, by the Middleages and by the Early Modern period they assumed a new, very different form: purchasing some from Arabs and Africans. But again, this was quite limited and many had always disagreed with it (hence movements to abolish). No one of that time would consider Roman style slavery to be good. Basically what I'm trying to say is you've propped up 'slavery' as a singular and agreed upon practice instead of various related practices later placed under a homogeneous notion. And even taking the specific form you're referring to, you're wrong, as I said, many had always disagreed. It only became popular to the extent of abolishment at that time, there are also economic reasons for this. Domestic wage-slaves were much cheaper than importing slaves, which would be more expensive even if they were domestic.

I hope everyone you love dies

>Racism is more like the inaccurate stereotyping
Racial stereotypes are always correct.

This. Group interests should come first. Eat the rich!

Attached: 1551378567664.jpg (960x600, 138K)

Sexually assault the bourgeois

Everyone dies, user