zlacker

What's the difference between "racism" and "neoracism"?

>>Minor4+(OP)
The same as between Nazism and neo-Nazism. Not much in essence, slightly different mimicry, identical roots.

>>Minor4+(OP)
Well a lot of people seem to think the definition of racism has changed to mean "power + prejudice," instead of just judging someone based on their race, so theoretically "neoracism" would just mean what "racism" meant ~20 years ago.

>>viklov+s2
"power + prejudice" is referred to as "structural racism". It's a sociology term. It was never intended to replace the common definition of racism, it was meant to be a framework for thinking about the different types and effects of racism. Structural racism doesn't preclude other types of racism, and structural racism can be a cause for acts of racism.

I think the focus is on structural racism now because the more blatant forms are drastically less common than they used to be.

>>viklov+s2
I would rather say that it should be define differently

Racism: Believing that some ethic groups and/or their components are either better or worse as a conseguence of their ethinity.

Neoracism: Believing that a reasonable solution to racism involves the application of different focused racism.

>>currys+Vk
> "power + prejudice" is referred to as "structural racism"

I'm not sure where you got that idea, but structural racism doesn't actually require prejudice at all (it often involves it's, but includes institutional features which preserve disadvantage through neglect as well as active discrimination.)

> It was never intended to replace the common definition of racism

Yes, “power + prejudice” was, when coined in 1970, specifically designed to replace the common understanding of “racism” and explain why relatively disadvantaged groups (who those endorsing the definition tend to describe actually powerless rather than merely relatively disadvantaged) cannot be racists in the context of the society in which they are disadvantaged, no matter how prejudiced they were.