At 7:25 AM -0700 7/11/08, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>On Nov 6, 2008, at 10:51 PM, David Cake wrote:
>
>> There are degrees and levels of racism. The plain,
>> old-fashioned racism, worries about genetics and descent. The
>> advanced, modern, kind still manages to discriminate against plenty
>> of people, but does it based on culture and class that just happens
>> to coincide with race. I saw a blog today that called it racism 1.0
>> and racism 2.0.
>
>I think this is absolutely backwards. The US didn't go to war with
>Japan during WWII because they thought the Japanese were sub-human
>monkey people. They went to war for geopolitical reasons and then the
>government started a propaganda campaign to convince people that the
>'Japs' or 'Nips' were sub-human.
Sure, racism ultimately reflects, and has its origin in, some
sociopolitical reality that has caused the two groups to come into
conflict. Doesn't mean it isn't racism.
But racism is different to just conflict between groups, etc.
And it doesn't mean that racism doesn't have, whatever its origins,
variations and differences of its own.
>Similarly the white Americans didn't decide to acquire slaves from
>Africa because they believed that Africans were actually inferior.
>They chose Africa because slaves were relatively cheap and available
>there and only later came up with Biblical and pseudo-genetic
>rationalizations for the practice.
Racism always has a *reason*. It is about justifying the
exercise of power over anyone you can get away with.
Racism that isn't used to justify use of power *doesn't
really matter*. In theory, it doesn't matter if you hate some ethnic
group that you are completely unlikely to be able to have any power
over, even indirectly - and in practice, racism is always about how
you feel about those that you do have power with, and whose interests
do intersect with your own.
But racism is still something distinct and different from
just conflict between groups, especially as racism maintains and
worsens existing conflicts.
>People will always dehumanize their enemies and those they oppress
>because it makes it psychologically easier to kill/exploit them. End
>the exploitation and the rationalization is no longer needed though
>it may linger for awhile.
Sure, but but there are different ways they can classify
their enemies, and not all are racist. There are difference between
hating Nazis, hating Germans, and hating Aryans, even though all
might have their origins in the same conflict between groups. Or
hating Japanese the race, Japanese the Nationality, and Japanese
Imperialists the political stance. Or between hating Arabs (racism
1.0), hating Arab Muslims (racism 2.0, or culturalism or whatever) ,
and hating Al Qaeda/Islamist terrorists.
And you can demonise the enemy without being racist. You can
hate the Taliban and want the evil fuckers to die without hating
Afghani's, or hating Muslims.
>I've met a man for Northern Ireland who was completely convinced that
>Catholics were genetically different from and inferior to Protestants.
>I've met a member of the Tohono O'odham who was absolutely convinced
>that Apaches were demons who could assume human, owl or coyote form at
>will. In each case these beliefs were responses to, rather than causes
>of the conflict.
Sure, I said nothing about cause and effect, just how you
judge people. Admittedly, in practice, peoples actual beliefs can be
kind of screwy, not to mention inconsistent and stupid - but I think
its easy enough in practice to work out whether someone is really
discriminating primarily on race or culture and class associated with
race.
The main point is it really doesn't matter - racism is still
racism if you think it is not genetic, but cultural. If you
discriminate not against the race per se, but against the culture
that just happens to be associated with the race, it can be just as
bad. It is a continuum. And sure, Obamas election is a big step
forward in race relations in te US, no doubt about it - but it still
seems that there is plenty of racism left.
In Australia, some of our worst acts of racism, in fact one
of our most notorious govermment programs, was explicitly organised
on the basis that it wasn't race but culture that was the primary
problem -- the government forcibly took Aboriginal children from
their families to be brought up by white families and white
institutions, because this would 'fix' the defective race, whose
culture was seen as barbaric. There was a racial element as well, but
the intent to eliminate the culture because of its inherent
inferiority was the worst part -- and my point is that getting over
the idea that 'race' is a genetic inferiority is only a small step
up, it still leaves you in the racist pit if you still despise other
cultures.
Cheers
David
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
