[PEN-L:8731] Re: Re: Marx and 19th century racism

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rod Hay wrote:

> My definition of racism is slightly different that that propagated in
> liberal circles.
>
> Race does not exist it has no material component. There is no biological
> difference among people that can be used as the bases of defining races.
> Race is simply an idea. It is idealist to use an idea to explain human
> history.

I am neutral on the issue whether race exists in nature to justify the concept
of race.  Those who constructed the concept had very wise things to say on other
issues, so they may not be entirely off base in their observation on race.
My concern is not the the validity of race as a concept but the impact of the
concept of race on human relations, individually and collectively. In that sense
my conlusion that racism and imperialism is causally linked is based on
emperical experience, not idealist conception.  It may be racist is a strict
constructionist way - in the sense that anything connected with race (the noun)
is racist (the adjective).

But my defintion of racism and racist is not that benign.  To me, racism
describes a general syndrome that employs the concept of race for human
exploitation and a racist act is one associated with that syndrome.

> Most liberals who decry racism, think that race does exist, but that we should
> not use that as a criteria for judging. Post-modernists (the ultimate
> liberals) claim we should recognize differences but not give priority to any
> particular group. In this context, "Race exist, but we should treat all as
> equally valuable."

I can live with that.

> The coexistence of slavery and christianity required the invention of racial
> theory. Christianity (especially its Protestant version) teaches that all are
> equal before God. Love thy enemy and numerous statements of the kind.
> The actual practice of slavery in juxtaposition of this type of thinking
> creates a cognitive dissonance which most of course were unconcern with but
> some found disturbing and proceeded to explain away by resorting to "racial
> theory" If the slave on what ever criterion could be considered as less that
> human, slavery could be justified.
>

I agree that is racism.

>
> Other society has racism, but because this cognitive dissonance did not arise
> did not need to justify they actions by a formal theory of race.

If race is not involved, it is not racism.  It is exploitation in other forms,
Racism is not the only kind of exploitation.

> Instead we get the hindu justification of caste. The chinese distinction
> between them and the "barbarians". And any number of other examples.
>

These are not examples of racism. They need to be described by other names.

> Henry's statements were "racist" in the sense that he appeared to think that
> race exists and that it could be used to explain behaviour. In this case the
> behaviour of Europeans.

As stated above, it is racist in the sense that it pertians to race.  It is not
racist in the sence that the statement is not exploitative, unless you think the
anti-imperialism is an racist against whites.  But since imperialism requires
victimization based on power, whites do not qualify as victims.  Morally, whites
may be also victims of racism, but not operationally.

> This is quite different from Charles' claim that the idea of race leads to
> certain behaviours which are undesirable. This is of course true.

The difference is hair splitting.

> And we should be working on common strategies to combat it. I think the first
> is to vigourously attack the idea that races exist.

Here I disagree on the stretegy.  The first is to stop racist acts and
institutions.
And to the extend that conceptual restructuring is needed to totally demolish
racist institutions, thats the time to deal with the idea of race.
As I said, in everyday life, its not that complicated to recognize or combat
it.  Rosa Park did not have to debate eloquently on the concept of race.  She
just sat on the front of the bus. It is hard for whites to recognized this, but
a nonwhilte in a white society is subject to racist act continuously everyday at
all levels.  Charles and I can understanding what we mean without
rationalization.  Whites deny it exists.  Therin lies the rub.

> Expose the "myth of race".
> Emphasis what all people have in common. Promote understanding that people
> around the globe have different ways of providing their psychological and
> social needs; that these different "cultures" are valid insofar as they
> provide for real human needs. I.e, that the needs are universal but the
> methods of meeting them vary. This way we have a standard upon which to judge
> other cultures. "Are the needs of the people being met?"

This is Ronald Reagon's approach.  Lets will it away, just say no.  Today, if
the concept of race is removed from consciousness, racism will still be
practised every second of the day systematically.

> To take a historical example, no longer valid, at one time it was customary to
> bind the feet of some chinese women. This is a practice that people no matter
> what their background can criticise because it is clear that these women will
> not be able to develop their full potential as human beings.

Feminine liberation has not become uneccesary because China forbade foot
binding.  The Western inspired world culture merely shifted the fetish to
push-up bras and silicon implants.

> Another example more current. There was in Toronto for a while, a group of
> young "black" men who criticise others for engaging in the "white" educational
> system--for "trying to be "white."" This political position can be criticise
> by anyone because it is clearly the dead end philosophy of defeatism.

No so fast.  The idea of a Black educational system, e.g. Howard University, is
not inoperative.  The idea of women colleges also.

> For all its imperfections the educational system does allow
> people to develop some of their intellectual potential--much more that
> withdrawal would. I would say instead, let's develop concrete proposals for
> improving the educational system for every one who is involved in it.

This is such an abstract goal, and so removed from reality that it bring little
compfort to those who must enter college next fall.

> Broaden the curriculum to include non European writers. Everyone would benefit
> from this.
>

I am not against diversity in the mainstream.  But that alone is ineffective in
combatting racism.  The emperical proof is on my side.
Several centuries after the awareness of the immorality of racism, it is still
active, rampant and justified with ever increasing sophistication.

> So to sum up it is racist to think that races exist. It is racist to think
> that "race" can explain behaviour.
>

This is circular, and proves nothing.

Henry C.K. Liu