What's In A Name?
If you see racism, say racism
Yesterday afternoon, the site ThinkProgress announced that terms like “racist” and “alt-right” will no longer be interchangeable in their news and media coverage. It might seem like a given, but many (read: most) publications are still much more comfortable using fun and flirty euphemisms for “white nationalists” or “white supremacists” in the post-election climate.
Take last week, when Trump named Breitbart newslord Steve Bannon his new senior counselor and Chief West Wing strategist. The New York Times generously introduced Bannon as “a right-wing media provocateur” with a passion for advancing “fringe ideology.” Later in the same piece, they quote an Anti-Defamation League statement that refers to Breitbart’s audience as “a loose-knit group of white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists,” so they eventually get to some particulars, but it seems like without a quote, we have a tough time feeling comfortable identifying hate when we see it in the media. It’s why the ThinkProgress announcement is so cool.
ThinkProgress will no longer treat “alt-right” as an accurate descriptor of either a movement or its members. We will only use the name when quoting others. When appending our own description to men like Spencer and groups like NPI, we will use terms we consider more accurate, such as “white nationalist” or “white supremacist.”
“White nationalist” refers to a specific ideology held by many of those who adopt the “alt-right” label. A white nationalist is someone who believes the United States should be governed by and for white people, and that national policy should radically advance white interests. White supremacists are a broader and more inchoate group, comprised of those who believe in the innate superiority of white people.
Isn’t that good? When someone is a Merriam-Webster white supremacist, the site won’t wink and say “opinionated gentleman” anymore, they’ll let you know what the deal is.
If Donald Trump is a documented and historical perpetrator of pretty much every major societal insensitivity, how often should we be bringing that up? And how directly? It’s a new sort of conversation to be having about an American president, especially before he’s even taken office, but one thing the media seems to be slowly agreeing on is that “alt-right” has its flaws as a descriptor.
“Although the alt-right is ideologically broader than white nationalism — it also includes neoreactionaries, monarchists, and meme-loving internet trolls — white nationalism makes up a significant part of its appeal,” wrote Amanda Taub in the New York Times.
“Jezebel has used the term ‘alt-right’ to refer to this loose conglomerate, among other monikers,” Jezebel’s Brendan O’Connor wrote. “Going forward, however, we resolve to be as specific as possible in naming their beliefs.”
“The prospects of politically incorrect language, disrespect for minorities, and hate crimes are a reality under a Trump presidency — and denouncing racist, white nationalism for what it is has to be part of any sort of resistance,” wrote Joseph D. Lyons in Bustle.
Would editorial conversations like this… have packed more of a punch back in August? Probably. But the good news is that we’re seeing outlets choose to use words for their intended purpose: pinpointing the specific idea you’re attempting to communicate to another, separate brain in the name of achieving understanding. And reader I, for one, am into it.