Lately I seem plagued by definitions. First I wanted to know what "morality" was. Then I wanted to know what the word "better" meant.

Well, as long as I find myself slouching towards a better morality, I might as well ask a question on a lot of people's minds lately.

What is racism?

On its face, the answer would seem easy. For me, racism has always meant believing in race as a factor in measuring the inherent worth of a person, particularly when that is coupled with discrimination.

But times have altered the meaning of the word, to the point where in many circles, racism requires a "power differential" which means "people of color" cannot be racist:

....a person of color cannot be racist, by definition, because racism also defines a power differential that is not usually present when a person or color is speaking.

While I shouldn't take pleasure in the misfortunes of others, it nonetheless seems like fitting retribution to see the purveyors of crackpot standards held to the the standards they would impose on others, and I was much amused by Ann Althouse's discussion of the "racism implicit in the excessive praise we've been hearing for Obama." This may tie in with the struggle between "purists" and "diversity purists." "Diversity purist" was another new term for me, but not to worry! Ann Althouse quotes a Penn professor on the subject:

Selective colleges have expanded their enrollments of black students by "increasing the number of immigrant and multiracial black students," Camille Z. Charles, an associate professor of sociology at Penn who is one of the study's authors, said in an interview on Wednesday.

"If you're a purist" -- that is, if you view affirmative action as restitution for the harm done by American slavery and segregation -- "then you'll think that this is not in the spirit of affirmative action," Ms. Charles continued. "But if you're a diversity purist, and your idea is to expose everybody to as many different kinds of people as possible, then you'll think this is great."

I suppose that according to the "diversity purists," someone like Barack Obama would, because he is of black African and not black American descent, not be a proper beneficiary of affirmative action, although hiring or promoting him would be laudable under the "diversity purity" theory.

This gets really crazy, because if black Americans are to be judged that way, shouldn't Chinese Americans whose ancestors were historically disadvantaged and worked to death building railroads back in the "yellow peril" era be entitled to specialized treatment not accorded to recent immigrants from China?

But even if we use historical disadvantage as a criteria, can that really be determined by skin color? Can it even be determined with reference to the period of time of ancestry in the United States? Black Americans who are descended from blacks who were free citizens at the time of the founding (there were many in the North) cannot be said to have been descended from people who suffered under slavery in the United States, nor can it be assumed that Chinese who immigrated to the East Coast have ancestors who were worked to death on the railroads.

It seems that there's a poorly understood mechanism governing the interaction between race, affirmative action, diversity, and the periods of ancestry in the United States. It is more subjective than objective.

But apparently, there are a lot of non-native black students at leading American universities. Enough to cause those who fret about the purity of essence to issue veiled threats of new discrimination:

At the most selective of the 28 schools, the ratios for non-native black students were even higher. The study included four Ivy League universities -- Columbia, Penn, Princeton, and Yale -- and at those universities, 41 percent of black students were first- or second-generation immigrants.

("E.g., Barack Obama," interjects Althouse here.)

"There are differences in racial identity among black students," Ms. Charles said. "In terms of their vulnerability to stereotype threat, it's certainly possible that students who don't identify strongly with an African-American identity don't experience that kind of anxiety."

"On the other hand, it's possible that even though they don't identify themselves a certain way, they realize that other people might be pigeonholing them. So it could go either way. That's what we're trying to parcel out."

DISCRIMINATION against immigrants!

In other words, to preserve and protect the purity of affirmative action against the growing threat posed by diversity purity, immigrants and their recent descendants must be penalized.

How? Thinking through the unthinkable parceling that's required to follow this out, it would seem that the social engineers might have to be so cruel as to put recent immigrants in a separate category -- maybe even treat them like white people!

Which means maybe it's possible that Barack Obama really might not be "really black" because his ancestors didn't come to America on the right ship at the right time.

It reminds me of the old days when snooty white people used to brag that their ancestors came over on the Mayflower.

I used to think such elitist thinking was behind us.

But there's a new elite along the lines of "My ancestors suffered more than yours!"

Nyaah Nyaah!