Nicole, I obviously did not make myself clear in my post. I was trying to
point out that when my friend said that the Portuguese (in the 16th and 17th
centuries, in Ceylon) were the least racist of the three imperial powers,
she did not mean that they were the least bad (in fact she thought they were
the worst). I was also pointing out that *you* however had treated her
statement that they were the least racist as somehow meaning that they were
the least bad.
And as for historical facts about racism: you seem to think it is
inevitable as well as a human universal. It is not. There is evidence of
people utterly failing to see themselves as we do now. Very few people in
the 16th century would have thought of themselves as European: Christian,
yes, but not European. The Romans at the time of their empire do not seem
to have noticed skin colour: what bothered them was citizenship; the
Greeks were hung up about the language others spoke.
Is that clear? I have at no stage made any statement of *my* opinion about
how racist or not the Portuguese were, are or ever will be. I do not know
enough to have such an opinion.
If you want to argue with me, please read what I say. God knows I read what
you say. And FYI, I disagree with a great deal of what Chris has to say. I
expect and hope he can live with the shocking news.
Susan
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15 March 1999 19:31
Subject: Re: America and global involvement
>In a message dated 3/15/1999 10:34:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
><< She did not say that the Portuguese were therefore the 'best', or 'least
>bad' of the group: it is Nicole who assumes that least racist = least bad.
>>
>
>Least Racist, the portuguese?
>
>The "racial harmony" myth of brasil is founded on the idea that the
>portuguese, having a full preoccupation with portuguese
men/indigenous/black
>women in the places they conquered, were often very "involved" colonizers.
>They believed that they could "breed out" the offending non-white
ethnicities,
>and each generation advanced an improved society. For the unwary, this will
be
>interpreted as "least racist". Just because you will have sex with someone
>doesn't mean that you respect their race or culture (or even that you don't
>hate it) any more than
>just because a man has sex with women, doesn't mean that he is not violent,
>abusive, chauvinistic and hateful towards women. (i.e. rapist, paedophiles,
>pimps, larry flint)
>
>You wrote " In fact my friend disliked the Portuguese record most of all:
>her stories of how they were given to tossing babies of people who refused
to
>convert to Roman Catholicism in the air and catching them on their bayonets
>was just one aspect of what she disliked. She just didn't ascribe this to
>racism. If Nicole differs, she needs to take it up with my friend, not me.
"
>
>You not only included her comment when you said " the Portuguese were the
>least racist of all [presumably, at least in part, because the concept of
race
>was not available to them at that time, although my friend did not mention
>that] ,"
>
>Well in this comment, she didn't say that racism was not a factor did she?
YOU
>presumed that it was because they had no concept of race. You even note
that
>your friend did not say that to you.
>
>My reply in that email was focused upon how you took what she said, and
>applied your own lack of understanding. You presumed why the Portuguese
were
>least racist based upon your knowledge and experience (or lack thereof).
Your
>perspective on such things.
>
>Historical fact reveals that they did have a concept of race. How could you
>possibly believe that they encountered African, Sri Lankan people and did
not
>see race? They didn't know they were portuguese and european, and the rest
>were not? Such a statement does not reflect knowledge on the circumstances
nor
>experience. It doesn't even reflect a foot in reality. It is your world
>perspective, your mental paradigm, but I do not see why you feel so strong
to
>argue it, when it is not based on either knowlege (fact) or experience?
>
>Not only do you argue it, but you attempt to correct me with it. Perhaps
you
>just feel (for whatever reason, hmm what could that be?) that you don't
have
>to have either, just the desire to "prove" that I am wrong about my
>perspective is good enough to expect me to feel challenged? To feel
>submissive? Are you used to that "air" of authority around your words,
humble
>immigrants subserviant and grateful to your emotionally sensitive kindness
to
>hear of the birds in their land, and wax poetic about how your heart bleeds
>for their plight?
>
>The most successful people of your mindset are the ones who manipulate
facts,
>alter reality, refused to see/acknowledge facts - to hold onto their world
>views - such as chris. He will take statements about sudan (1) ignore any
>facts to the contrary, even if they are the majority and (2) elevate single
>facts to represent all and (3) warp whatever possible - all to support his
>jesus complex (I figure he has the robes and all) and has pondered nailing
>himself to a cross to make the natives obey him and "understand" how he
loves
>them. Worship Me! See how I bleed for you! How can you forsake me? I am
dying
>for you and only through me will you get to heaven - to jannah - to
>liberation.
>
>Bizarrely, Susan, in your most recent statement added " She just didn't
>ascribe this to racism". Her statement doesn't reveal that she disregarded
>racism. Perhaps if you asked her if the portuguese attempted to enforce
their
>culture, visage, governmental views, etc. on her people and promoted
>themselves as higher, to be obeyed- this too is a manifestation of racism.
If
>you knew more of Sri Lankan history, you would find that they did - as did
the
>others
>
>However, you are the one who also (as you said) toured the parliament
>buildings in Kotte, yet still felt really wise in arguing that what I wrote
>was wrong and quite proudly proclaiming "Colombo is the capital of Sri
Lanka".
>Wouldn't your experience have clicked a bit in your head to take more
>accurately what I wrote - or did your perspective block you?
>
>But oh right, I am not supposed to disagree with you. You are too
>knowledgeable and prestigious to be wrong, where I could be right.
>
>However, I suspect a lot of Sri Lankan school children could have told you
>that I was not wrong in what I wrote. Go figure!
>
>A fundamental aspect of colonialism is that the colonizers (especially as
>later neo-colonials) try to minimize the negativity of colonialism - one
major
>tactic is impressing upon the population the views that they were
"civilized",
>"elevated", "developed" by the colonizers and therefore colonialization was
>more a positive than a negative. This of course negates the reality of
>cultural and physical damage, years of submission in one's own land.
>Acceptance of this santized view of colonialization is a significant
mentality
>among various colonized people.
>
>If you read Fanon as you say you did, you would understand this fact.
However,
>perhaps you could not understand beyond your own paradigms of the
experience -
>while conversely masses of especially African enslaved, colonialized people
>see exactly what he means. It isn't just knowledge (what you read, your
level
>of education), your professional achievements, but also perspective and
>experience that provide coherence.
>
>A well-known and well-repeated "formula" of the African American experience
>is: Knowledge and wisdom brings forth the understanding. Wisdom gained
through
>experience and perspective.
>
>Don't automatically assume that you should dominate, especially in areas
>outside of your "realm". And stop trying to convince other people (while
you
>have no footing) that they must be silent, passive and accept that they are
>wrong. Allow that sometimes others do know when we don't - and if you
>disagree, try to have some facts?
>
>The fundamental problem with some on this list is that they do not want to
let
>go of the days when they could be the great and sensitive saviours of the
>"oppressed masses". When they could simply ride high feeling that they
weren't
>as mean as the nasty old racists, not like the KKK - therefore allowing
>themselves to not see their own flaws in these areas. They long for those
days
>when the "oppressed masses" didn't talk back, didn't speak their own words,
>perspectives, and didn't dare challenge the right of the great white
knights
>(and damsel knights) to feel like saviours and protectors raging against
the
>immorality of their kinfolk.
>
>Heaven forbid, one of those "people" says "no wait, let me say how I feel
>about this issue" or egads! dare say " I disagree with you" or (horror of
>horrors) say "You are acting like the others you claim not to be like,
though
>in your liberal sensitive cloak".
>
>Then those philosophers, educators - the liberals, the educated and "aware"
>rush in just like the klan to suppress, disempower, undermine (and rant
about
>erection threats, sexual entendres just like the klan did and does) to make
>sure no one dare question them, stains the great sainthood they hold dear.
[we
>are required to be blind and deaf, but we can think, just not speak]
>
>The sainthood which allows them to paint somalis as savages en masse, to
>disregard non-white women entirely except as objects to be 'saved and
guided
>and molded' by a great white jesus figure and to be "educated" yet wave
around
>presumptions as facts in the name of sensitivity. All of course call upon
who
>they have dated, who they have by marriage become related to, among the
>"oppressed peoples" as proof of their deep understanding and awareness. Not
>even knowing that this is no proof.
>
>These people are far more insidious damaging than the kkk and neo-nazis -
and
>they don't even know it. The Klan type people are openly against and out
for
>destruction - people like this are covert, subtle destroyers, liberal
spoken
>paternalists who feel if they talk nice then they aren't really tying the
dog
>to the fence they are looking out for its own good. That they aren't
>oppressive, they are just looking out for our best interests and want to do
>some ethnic exploring and "bonding" (just like the great white hunters on
>safari who bragged of their expeditions).
>
>They have their cloaks of righteousness firmly wrapped around their eyes -
and
>will never get it off to know otherwise.
>
>Thankfully, a lot of us do know it and exist against it. Even a some of the
>kin of the cloaked.
>
>"THE MOST POTENT WEAPON IN THE HAND OF THE OPPRESSOR IS THE MIND OF THE
>OPPRESSED." - Steve Biko
>
>This is over for me.
>
>Nicole
