[PEN-L:11444] Re: Re: Re: Capitalist development

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Devine wrote:

> > No amount of empirical refutations will convince those who think
> otherwise that 'non-Europeans' were and are not inferior to 'Europeans.'<
>
> is there anyone on pen-l who thinks that non-Europeans are inferior to
> Europeans? (I'd like an electronic show of hands.) Yoshie, do you think
> that there are people like that on pen-l?

I agree with Yoshie essentially, but let's say you are right re all on pen-l,
that none of them personally think "that non-Europeans are inferior to
Europeans." Two broad points. Whether or not one would subscribe
to such a flat statement, it is clearly possible to act and think on a
broad range of issues *as though one did*. I would, for example,
ascribe such virtual belief in european superiority ("the white man's
burden") to all those who in one way or another, directly or
indirectly, support "humanitarian intervention" by imperialist nations
around the globe. Guthrie's refrain still describes very accurately
huge numbers of people (including 10s of millions who wouldn't
admit it, even to themselves): "The radio says they are just deportees."

Let me offer a quick self-test. J. Edgar Hoover purportedly once said
something like, "You can tell communists because they are comfortable
in the company of blacks." There is the obvious direct sneer at blacks.
There is the less obvious and deeper racism of assumng that of course
only whites are independently communists. *That* -- and even a
momentary failure to note that -- is the serious eurocentrism that,
I argue, can't be broken by debates over empirical history. It can be
broken only by a complex political practice that interweaves at least
two kinds of groups: independent black groups and multiracial
organizations. And most of the mass support of both such groups
(as well as most of the leadership) won't really know much one way
or the other about the growth of capitalism in the 17th century.

The other broad point. While I personally found this debate enlightening --
I get a kick out of history -- politically I tend to view it from the
perspective of its contribution to agitational and organizational work.
Assuming (and I'm not assuming here -- I'm speaking of people I've
talked to in the last week) -- assuming an initially friendly audience
(audience, not reader) of two or three who already in a kneejerk
fashion agree with me that u.s. bombing in Yugoslavia is a probably
a bad thing, how do I help them see the relationship between that
bombing (or the popular support for it) and the backlash against
affirmative action in the u.s. Debates about the exact proportion of
slave and free labor exploitation in the 17th century don't help
me much.

Carrol