What you have just quoted, Don, suggests this to me:

As paranoia and hostility are clearly common aspects of the kind of fear-based psychology that can result in racism, so is any fear of that which is perceived as different, so it wouldn't be at all surprising if a racist attitude also included ancillary aspects such as "prejudice and antagonism towards ........those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occasionally in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities."

That does not mean, however, that those aspects themselves can be defined as "racism", merely that they may accompany racism.

Racism is hatred based upon race, period. That's what it is, and that's why it's called "racism". The other things in your quoted definition are many other aspects of prejudice which are reasonably likely to be found in the kind of mindset that naturally is inclined to racism.

This is the same as to say that bank robbers (a very specifically definable group of criminals) are also likely to be:

violent (though probably a few of them are not)
antisocial
ammoral
emotionally unstable
hostile
irresponsible
etc.

Fine. But just because someone is ammoral or antisocial or violent or irresponsible does NOT equate to him being a bank robber, does it?

Neither does WAV's defensiveness about the sanctity of English culture equate to him being a racist, because it is NOT based on race at all...it's based on cultural values. It is English cultural values that concern him, as opposed to Scottish cultural values, Irish cultural values, Indian cultural values, Caribbean cultural values, etc. Those are all a question of custom and mindset...not race...not skin color...not hair color...not any physical characteristic of a person whatsoever.

You can perhaps call him a cultural xenophobe if you want. You can say he's prejudiced if you want. You have no justification to call him a racist. The popularity of the word "racist" in popular dialogue these days is more based upon the devastating power of the word itself to utterly damn and fatally wound its target than on anything else, in my opinion, and that is why it comes up so much in the public dialogue.

This is not true of the word "prejudice". WAV, arguably, can be said to be showing prejudice. He is not showing racism.


To triumphantly say to someone "Game, set, and match." is like delivering one of those snappy sound bites that figure so largely in network news and political campaigns these days. It sounds impressive! It holds no actual content. It doesn't prove anything.

Accordingly, you won't find me saying it.