Antiblack is widely understood to mean opposed to the advancement of black people. To be resistant or antagonistic to black people or their values or objective. I’d say only a small number of people would identify as antiblack.
But your use of the term antiwhite is not antithetical to antiblack. You write as an intellectual on the subject as do many other people who are thinkers on race in America.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people (black and white) don’t have the time or interest to get into the nuanced meanings you are trying to define, as you seem to be aware:
“If someone doesn’t understand white as a social construct of unjust superiority, then antiwhite is akin to being antiBlack or anti any racial group”.
Exactly right! To the vast majority of people antiwhite is the opposite of antiblack. Ergo, if you are antiwhite and I am white, then you are against me and I am against you. Not a helpful outcome.
So, instead of trying to better define the meaning of antiwhite in tiny circles of intellectuals, why don’t we just use a clearer term for what you are trying to define, namely just use “anti-white supremacy*”. Isn’t that what you really mean? You’d certainly get more people on board and it frees up your time to write persuasively about things that matter more than semantics.
Rather than “…argue for a different definition and a different implication to the term antiwhite at a moral and political level”, stop speaking in tongues as so many intellectuals do. Just make it “easier for white people [all people] to oppose the superiority and the supremacy — in principle”. After all, Medium is not a scholarly publication. Feel free to use intellectual terminology in your postgraduate dissertation.
I’m picking on the term antiwhite in this case, but the problem of redefining well-understood terms is pervasive suddenly. I know language changes, but it is rarely because someone decides on a better definition of a word and everyone agrees and changes their usage.
What we end up with is a breakdown in communication at a time when better communication is what we need most.
*Here I am using the word “supremacy” in an intellectual’s way in the interest of keeping this post short. Intellectuals have also hijacked the “supremacy” and use it in place of “dominance”. Supremacy means to be superior. White supremacy is already widely understood to mean things like the Aryan Nation (a belief that the white race is superior). It is the perception of supremacy historically that has created a condition of whiteness acting superior, while most educated people know full well that there isn’t any actual superiority. Being better off because of a system based on historical stealing from others does not make one superior. So in truth, I think we should just not use antiwhite when we can perfectly well just use “anti-white dominance”. I’m not being pedantic. I recently listened to a Sam Harris podcast and his guest used the term white supremacy for 10 minutes before Harris realized they were arguing because of different definitions and they actually agreed in principle.
If you don’t see my point, I’m sure you’ll make me smarter about it, so I have nothing to lose here.