[PEN-L:8807] Re: Re: Marx and 19th century racism

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

Ricardo Duchesne wrote:

> > It is undeniable that racism is both a Western invention and a virus.
>
> Depends what you mean by racism,

I have defined in the same post that to me, racism is not a mere recognition of
race as a social construct, but the application of the concept as justification
for the oppression of a people.

> and, in view of your previous postings on this matter, I submit that you
> should differentiate between ethnocentrism and racism.

I do.

> Ethnocentrism, which is a universal trait amongs all peoples or cultures, is
> simply the belief that your culture
> is superior to that of others, with some cultures, particularly the
> Chinese through their thousand year history, being more ethnocentric than
> others.

True.  Yet Chinese ethnocentrism is strictly cultural.  The Chinese empires were
not imperialistic is the Western sense of taking riches from the periphery to
the core, it was always the reverse.

> Racism, on the other hand, is the idea that one race is
> *biologically* superior to another. Racism, in the sesnse of a
> systematic set of "scientific" arguments about the inequality of
> races is, yes, a European creation. But to equate European high
> culture as such with racism is childplay at best. In fact, I would
> argue that without Europe's intellectual legacy there would be no
> *critical*, *reflective* means to challenge racism. But let's wait
> and see what Yoshie says about the categorical imperative - although I think
> she might do better recalling the rape of Nanking!

The whole idea behind this thread is that there were racist elements in 19th
century European high culture.  The fact that it also included intellectual
processes for opposing racism does not deny its existence.
Not everything Kant wrote was racist.  In the Critique of Practical Reason
(1788) and Critique of Judgment (1790), Kant would assert as a moral law his
famous categorical imperative, which would require moral actions to be
unconditionally and universally binding to absolute good will.

The Rape of Nanking may be racist given that period of Japanese history having
been dominated by Fascist ideas imported from the West.  But racism certainly
was not the sole cause.  The Rape of Nanking was a single event, though not the
sole atrocity, in one period of history. the atrocities were more in the nature
of war crimes. There was some truth in the observation that the atrocities were
order as a propaganda strategy to obliterate further Chinese resistance, and not
because the victim were Chinese.  Japanese occupation is other cities, Hong
kong, for example, was much more benign.

One has to remember that Janpese/Chinese relations is not the simplistic.  Much
of Chinese revolutionary activities took place in Japan by exiled Chinese
dissidents.  Sun Yat-sen spent a great deal of time there and received much help
from Japanese friends and sympathizers.  Chiang Kai-shek received his military
training in Japan.  Many Communist leader also spent much time there.  Japanese
imperialism in China was an imitation of Western imperialism.  Asia was
disappointed in Japan behavior in WWII because Asians could not understand why
another Asian nation would be so unAsian in its attitude to other Asians.  The
current status of Japan as a member G7 carries similar problem for Japan today.
Japan can never be a leader in Asia if it continue its Cold War role of an
client state of the US and and agent of the WEst in Asia.  But Asian understand
that Japan did not have any alternative, being a defeated nation and subject to
a political regime imposed on it by the conquering MacArthur.

Your attempt to defuse racism with intellectual complexity is highly suspect.

Henry C.K. Liu