The word appears as early as 1900, and very similar words were in use as early as the 1860's.

Dictionary.com says the origin of the word was 1932

I don't think they're right, since Richard Henry Pratt's use of the word in 1902 is widely cited.

"Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism."

(Richard Henry Pratt was himself, of course, massively racist.)

So, Richard Henry Pratt was most noted for running a school in Pennsylvania that forcibly educated Native American children into "American" culture - i.e. to wash the native culture out of them in the name of assimilation into the now dominant culture of, basically, white people. The Australians ran a very similar gimmick on Aboriginal children right through to the 1950's.

We know today what a barbaric practice this is, but at the time he argued it by claiming that cultural assimilation was the best way to deconstruct segregation. And that is how he played the "not racist" card to his brazen white savior complex.

And honestly, we still get a lot of that attitude today. The country's full of people who would say that they're not racist in a heartbeat, but further examination would reveal that they're only colorblind when people of color walk, talk, dress, and act like them. It's definitely still racism.

You mean me Octavia, and yea I showed you link after link verifying his well known quote.
Here you are booked hoping after yet again never coming up with any proof on your own to debunk or prove wrong what I post.
And the fact this has gone on with you probably over a year,if not more by now, speaks volumes about you, a man going by the name Octavia.
No offense to the LGBT community.
I guess the other thread I proved you wrong on yet again, the OP couldn't take it ,& blocked me or deleted the thread.

Gee it's not like comments arent saved on our posts here huh?

Lmao,now you getting defensive after all these repeated times you've challenged the veracity of my posts & proven wrong each & every time.
What size net you using to be catching all these feelings? 😂

No, really, what does "a man going by the name Octavia" have to do with anything you're discussing? It wouldn't matter if you're arguing with a blob named Sand Weasel: you discuss the merits of the argument and that's all.

And from what I'm reading, it looks like you've been arguing in terrible faith. You've clearly been deflective, moving the goal posts, and making unsubtantiated claims.

Octavia chiming in yet again never providing one bit of factually disproving any of my many posts he's challenged.
And we both know how long this has been going on.
That's who Octavia runs to groups to come at my posts after I've again proved my point to be factually correct.
So any of you calling my post non factually correct, it's a put up or shut up situation.

Lmao. It was an A & B conversation, you should feel free to C your way out of it.
My fact based validation on each comment is right there
Your refusal to acknowledge is your own issue and as irrelevant to me as your opinion.
However, the general rule is if you cast doubt on my posts, then your obligated to provide the information debunking & disproving them all.
The balls in your court if you're honorable.

I put up certified historically accurate facts. If you have doubts or critiques, put up your proof of step off.

I could imagine they are wrong. Just showing what they say