In order to define racism, we first have to define race. If you google the word "race," the results will provide explanations that define the meaning of the word to refer to a competition of speed, or a description of speed itself. The first result that associates the word "race" with the categorization of human beings is Wikipedia, and the disclaimer that heads the entry reads as follows: "This article is about human races as a social concept and in anthropology." It also provides that there are alternative definitions of the concept of "race" which are dependent upon the context within which "race" is being discussed ("the sociological concept," "the human race (all of humanity)," and "in biology"). Biology's denotation of "race" is not applicable to this discussion, considering it refers to "an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy" with emphasis on categorization of cells, hosts, parasites, etc. in terms of chromosomal, geographical, and physiological races. Anthropology is "the study of various aspects of humans within past and present societies", while sociology is "the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society." These frameworks are essentially mediums within which cultural and social norms and values can be identified and discussed in scientific terms.

The classification of "race" within these frameworks have changed drastically over time. Originally, different races were segregated based upon which language individuals spoke. This developed into "race" as an association with one's national origins and affiliations. By the 17th century, "race" as a signifier was hinged upon the physical traits (such as skin color, hair texture, facial features) of an individual, with disregard for the preceding factors associated with delineating a person's or a people's race. The very concept of race is fluid and ever-changing, just as easily as it is solidified and fortified, and determined by a society's agreement or disagreement upon the terms that define it. The fact that conceptions of "race" and what elements determine race have changed throughout the history of recordable humanity is irrefutable evidence that what we, as a collective society, consider "race" and the determinations of race today as absolutely arbitrary and changeable still.

So what definition of "race" can we trust? The only one that is consistent and determinate is the aforementioned "human race (all of humanity)." There are no races within the human race; the human race is the only race. Because we as a species possess the ability of language as our primary tool for communicating, we have found it necessary to appoint terminology that allows us to communicate in the most efficient and recognizable way. It is difficult to battle racial views because we are so accustomed to believing that our language is determinant of what is and what isn't.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that language determines and/or greatly influences modes of thought characteristic of the culture that speaks that language. The following is a simple example of the application of this theory:

In the English language, the word "blue" is a term that encompasses all shades of blue. English-speakers are aware that there are light, medium, and dark blues, blues that have some green hues and blues that have some purple hues, but they have a single word, "blue," to refer to all of these varieties of blue that exist. In the Russian language, there is no all-encompassing word for blue. There are two: "goluboy," which is all of the light blues, and "siniy," referring to all of the darker blues. There have been many experiments that explore and oftentimes support the notion that Russian-speakers are naturally more capable of determining very similar blues from each other, or dark blues from lighter blues. They essentially see and think of shades of blues in different ways than English-speakers because their language is structured in a way that encourages and reinforces them to do so.

I, as an English-speaker, will see the sky and call it "blue," whereas a Russian-speaker will see the sky and may call it "goluboy" or "siniy," depending on the time of day and what blue they see. I can call the sky blue whether it is a light blue or a dark blue, and whoever is listening, as well as myself, will understand that I mean "blue". For Russian-speakers, the distinction is necessary. The point of this example is to demonstrate that language, words assigned different meanings and associated with different things, greatly determines how we think about our world and the objects in it. Therefore, the way in which we talk about race influences the very way we think about race. Granted, I am not advocating for a complete rejection of the words "white," "black," and "Hispanic." Although these terms are widely misconstrued and applied inaccurately, because we possess language we must have words that refer to categories or subcategories of people, of groups, etc. for whatever imaginable purpose. What you should conclude from this, however, is that these words have absolutely no meaning, and are effectively working, day-in and day-out that you use and are exposed to them, to shape your mindset regarding the subject to which they refer.

If you as an individual are able to remove your language-lenses with this knowledge, understanding that these words are shaping your thoughts and opinions, your standpoints, values, judgement, and views, then you as an individual are able to overcome your perception of others according to the words that are associated with them, and instead leave language to remain as arbitrary and inconstant as it is. It would be an incredibly transcendent feat to develop the ability to view these words as merely tools of reference and communication, and not boundaries within which your thoughts must exist. Most linguists and psychologists would argue that it isn't possible. And I agree, to a certain extent. According to the extensive evidence that has been provided on this subject, the development of language is crucial to form thoughts and memories. This explains why infants and young children are unable to remember their childhood from three to four years old and earlier (because they had not yet developed the ability to understand and create language). However, without totally abandoning the skeletal structure of language, we can remind ourselves that language is just that, a skeleton upon which rests the muscle and skin - the real substance.

In the beginning of this article, I provided that, centuries ago, the concept of "race" was utilized to determine the differences between individuals based on the language that they spoke. Imagine living in that world, which would be inherently different than our world today even solely based on terminology differences. Me, my African-American friend to my right, and my Asian-American friend to my left, would all be racially categorized as "English," or "English-speaking." When we would fill out job applications, we would all check the same box under "race." How powerful language is in determining how we think about ourselves, the world, and our relation to it. How powerful then, are you, with the knowledge of language's power? All societal issues and misunderstandings can be solved with awareness. Spreading awareness and educating others are the best and most effective ways of implementing change.

In a few hundred years, as language significantly fluctuates, changes, and evolves (as it always has and will), humanity's verbal categorization of race will be structured differently; it may be slightly changed or entirely unrecognizable. This new structure will solve the current problems associated with race and our perception of race, create new problems, or both.

Since I talked a lot about language and not nearly as much about race (aka humanity), I'll leave you with this: You cannot be human all on your own. Humanity is reciprocal. We achieve our humanity by recognizing the humanity of others. That is why we as a species crave community with others like ourselves. But, by implying that someone is not your equal, that you are better than them based solely on gender, sexual preference, or skin color, you are denying them their humanity. In doing so, you are denying your own.

For more information on the English-Russian "Blue" argument, go here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876524/

To read up on race in early American, go here: http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-262