Meaning is only resemblance

Meaning is only resemblance, nothing more.

In this case, all words resemble one another.

BLACK resembles something black, and not black itself; WHITE resembles something white, not white itself.

Because of this,  BLACK  resembles  WHITE , and  WHITE  resembles  BLACK  insofar as they mean only by resembling something else.

Or, BLACK can also be WHITE, and WHITE can also be BLACK.

Same with MAN and WOMAN.

MAN resembles any other man, and not man itself ; WOMAN resembles any other woman, not woman itself.

Thus, WOMAN resembles MAN, and MAN resembles WOMAN  insofar as they mean only by resembling something else.

Same with AMERICAN and CHINESE.

AMERICAN resembles anything american, not American itself; CHINESE resembles anything chinese, not Chinese itself.*

Hence, the two words resemble each other because they can resemble anything.

All words are inter-changeable because identities never change.

P.S.

IT IS RAINING. IT IS NOT RAINING. There is no such thing as contradiction on the page. All words are inter-changeable. A word can say anything. A word doesn't say anything. A word is also what it isn't.

(*Let's take an example : AMERICAN or CHINESE CAR. This simplifies the historical origin of the car. It tells us that the car came from the U.S. or China, although it may still be the same kind of car using some similar technology. What if the car was assembled by Chinese-Americans in the U.S.? Or by Indian-Americans, or by German-Americans, or Japanese-Americans? And what if the various technology and science that allowed the fabrication of the car came from all places and history: physics, mathematics, chemistry, engineering, materials science, etc.? What if Chinese cars also used some German technology? Is the Chinese car still CHINESE? 

A sign, a word, or a symbol is a set of heterogeneous elements, an ensemble of items which have multifarious origins and natures. For example, using Norwegian salmon for sushi in Japanese cuisine, or French wine oaks from the Baltic states. Only in a world where trade hasn't taken place, where cultures or nations or states have no contact with each other could we maintain any homogeneous entity. Apart from this pluralistic aside, even our own photos don't represent us. The time and context are different, the emotion, the thought, not just the clothes, can be different. The body has also shed so many cells, we have aged, grown, gained or lost weight, etc. The photo can therefore be anybody. This possibility is not excluded by any biographical consolidation, which is also a form of fiction, with all its convention and pretension to tell all as much as possible. The fact that an actor can play a given biographical personage indicates that we are already in the realm of resemblances. Why not? Your own life already resembles so many others: politicians for politicians, soldiers for soldiers, doctors for doctors, middle class like other middle classes, tall like others, sick like others, unfaithful and faithful, strong or weak, young and old, brave, naked, struggling, and in the end, successful, with few regrets and lost loves. The narrative is ready-made and unoriginal. These are old ideas, and I am just repeating them and myself.)