Issues of Racism

[Tovah]

These were my comments on the matter:

I would have to agree with S & V on the issue of racism. There is undoubtedly no way to objectively assert our convictions and beliefs as non-racist, but rather to strive to eliminate any manifestation of it. The point is vigilance not a declaration followed with indifference.

We should keep a broader perspective, knowing even that in the twentieth century the beginnings of progressive social movements including the feminist movements (Margaret Sanger, for example), labour movements (the Knights of Labour and their view of Asian peoples) and socialist movements were inextricably tied to racist ideologies (eugenics being a pervasive one). The question isn't whether these people were racist, rather, but what kind of racist. We can only express ourselves in terms of the narratives and concepts of our times, and if those are invariably racist, we will be seen as racist to future generations.

Issues of race and its implications are only significant in an already racist society. When studies linking ethnicity and 'intelligence' are made, outcries ring out, but only because our society itself makes racist assumptions that lend significance to those findings. The same conclusion reached with say, height and intelligence would register little if anything in terms of a reaction with most people, since our society does not distinguish people from one another and impose a hierarchical system upon them based on height. But we do with 'race'.

This may be venturing off topic, but I believe the best way to undermine these power structures of racism and other forms of discrimination is to allow people control over their own lives. Race really only exists with nationhood. And nationhood exists because of government.

I'm tired of leaving issues of morality and human liberty to the 'objective' lense of scientific inquiry.

As W.E.B. Dubois once said, even if we find a distinguishable difference amongst different people, does that somehow justify anything?

FACT: If you promote the shared equity/equality of all people regardless of sexual orientation or 'race' or ethnicity with scientific measures like genetic continuity between all groups you leave open the possibility of a refutation of those same facts in the future, scientifically.

So the question is, if science proved there was a difference amongst 'races', would that make discrimination against certain groups justified?

Of course not. That is the danger.

Science should not be a moral arbiter. People and their decent impulses should.

Oh, and nationalism isn't just Fascist garbage. It's also socialist garbage. And was at one time feminist garbage. It's the garbage of whatever group sees it fit as a means to an end.

Nationalism unfortunately fits the political program of many political groups.

And for S & V: "WC - however, regardless of what prejudices or preconceptions a black person may have, he/she cannot be racist. Power is an intrinsic part of racism, the current world order is driven by a white, racist agenda."

Explain?

[Anarchic Tribes]

Where I live there are a lot of non-'white' rascists. Nationalism is born from fear.

[Tovah]

Yes and I believe issues of racism are very much dependant upon the context. As example like Brasil reveals an incredibly different history and forms of racism, but a nonetheless pervasive presence of it.

The most notable examples of racism and probably the most focused on (and for good reason) are that of the dynamics between 'white' and 'black'. I think this is mostly because of the unique circumstances surrounding American history.

But yeah, other groups can be racist in the same way that both sexes can be sexist.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

I disagree. As just posted on the NS forum:

It is possible for a black person to have prejudices about other races, but without institutionalised authority/power over those races it is prejudice, not racism. A woman may have prejudices about men, but without institutionalised authority over men, it is prejudice, not sexism. As Michael Moore suggests, the world is currently run by stoopid white men. The institutions of power are white and male.

[Tovah]

Sacco said:

I disagree. As just posted on the NS forum:

It is possible for a black person to have prejudices about other races, but without institutionalised authority/power over those races it is prejudice, not racism. A woman may have prejudices about men, but without institutionalised authority over men, it is prejudice, not sexism. As Michael Moore suggests, the world is currently run by stoopid white men. The institutions of power are white and male.

Hmm, that does clarify your statement for me, but I think I still disagree.

I do however agree that there should be a distinction between the prejudices of those in power, and those under its authority... but I think you're ascribing your own definition to racism. Racism does not necessarily have to have an institutionalized form. Refering to something as 'prejudice' whether its orientation is that of sex or race is a bit disingenuous. I mean, I don't think anyone would argue that Margaret Sanger wasn't racist. She was definitely in no position of authority (except, of course, if you catergorize her being white as lending her some kind of authority...).

I take issue with the assertion that the world is run COMPLETELY with stupid white men. I can think of many examples that counter that, but I do agree ultimately, the hierarchical institutions of power are white and male.

Hmm, this is actually an interesting point I had never thought of. I must admit, I do feel hesitant about some of it, since it feels like semantic hair-splitting...

[Anarchic Tribes]

Racism: 1) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

S&V,
racism is based on beliefs not reality, therefore has nothing to do with who has power.

[Tovah]

Anarchic said:

Racism: 1) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

S&V,
racism is based on beliefs not reality, therefore has nothing to do with who has power.

I agree, but I also feel S & V is correct in that there is a qualitative difference in racism propogated by those in power, and those under their authority.

I don't believe, however, that the distinction should be between 'racism' and 'prejudice'.

[Tovah]

Oh, and when we speak of power, we are ultimately speaking to political authority, are we not?

This does not address issues of race that occur in every other facet of life. Relationships of power are not only those between person and state, but also person and person in many instances.

Racism can exist without authority.

[Anarchic Tribes]

I guess that was what S&V meant by power, but I was just thinking of power in general. Oil, food, land, guns, political authority, intelligence etc. And yes the majority of 'power' is held by stupid white men. That is a fact based on reality. To then go on to say white men are the cause of global warming, hunger and poverty, homelessness, war, political corruption, social oppression, and stupidity, would be racist and sexist. That would not be a fact based on reality , but a prejudice brought on by a fact based on reality.

[workerscommunes]

Anarchic said:

I guess that was what S&V meant by power, but I was just thinking of power in general. Oil, food, land, guns, political authority, intelligence etc. And yes the majority of 'power' is held by stupid white men. That is a fact based on reality. To then go on to say white men are the cause of global warming, hunger and poverty, homelessness, war, political corruption, social oppression, and stupidity, would be racist and sexist. That would not be a fact based on reality , but a prejudice brought on by a fact based on reality.

I agree. It is perfectly possible to be racist and sexist towards a white man but this is arguably less damaging as this prejudice is likely to come from 'below' rather than 'above'. I don't think that should be used as any kind of justification though.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

Anarchic said:

Racism: 1) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

S&V,
racism is based on beliefs not reality, therefore has nothing to do with who has power.

Which dictionary is that from?

The same one as this:

an·ar·chy
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

anarchy

Beware of swm trying to define your language.



Now then, enough of these misleading definitions, how about we discuss the purpose of racism?

Is it an entirely self-contained affliction suffered at random by members of the homo sapiens species?

Or, is it a tactic, dreamed up by those in power, to divide us among ourselves and thus to make it easier for those in authority to retain authority?

Much comment here has seemed to accuse ordinary people of being bigots and racists by their nature, rather than being victims of lies and manipulation by the state or indeed, the white male world order. Isn't that analysis a little naive? A little condescending perhaps?

[Anarchic Tribes]

S&V,
please give us your definition of racism.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

I think mostly I have:

a tactic, dreamed up by those in power, to divide us among ourselves and thus to make it easier for those in authority to retain authority?

How about:

The creation and manipulation of racial prejudice by the ruling class to divide the under class, one against another, based on fear and suspicion, in order to preserve their power.

[claptonpond]

Sacco said:

How about:

The creation and manipulation of racial prejudice by the ruling class to divide the under class, one against another, based on fear and suspicion, in order to preserve their power.

Not a bad definition. It doesn't preclude racism against whites though - that serves ruling class interests just as much as the other way round.

I do think black people can be racist against whites - though obviously it tends to be less harmful since they're less likely to be in positions of power. However, a lot of what's often perceived as black-on-white racism is probably more a reaction to white-on-black racism, rather than racism in itself. In other words, if black people resent the fact that those in authority are mostly white (or that whites are generally better off, or whatever), and take out their resentment on white people, that's not racism. If, on the other hand, they believe whites are naturally inferior or some such bullshit, that is racism.

Also, isn't it a little condescending to claim that ordinary people are simply "victims of lies and manipulation"? Surely that's just as naive and simplistic as accusing them of being bigots and racists by their nature. I think the problem's a damn sight more complex than either of those two positions would suggest.

[Walter and Theodor]

I think racism is all about power and I don't think the group that is not empowered by the heirarchy as it stands can be accused of racism. A teacher I had put it this way: In the US in the 1960's was it the same thing for a Klansman to say he hated Black people as it was for Malcolm X to say he hated white people?

racism is only a useful term when it refers to the power differential. That is what distinguishes it, as a word, from prejudice. Racism is prejudice enacted by those who are in power over the object of their prejudice. The same could be said of sexism. To say that some women are sexist is just a misunderstanding of terms.

However, I think it is a very politically expedient misunderstanding intensly encouraged by the very power structures we are discussing.